So I currently have the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF for use on my D80.

It's okay-ish, but it is really pretty soft above 200mm and the AF focussing is painfully slooooooow sometimes.

Is it worth my while stepping up to the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR IF-ED which is the update of the same lens but with AF-S focussing, VR and low-dispersion glass.

Or should I move to an equivalent Sigma lens (which tend to also offer macro which is not essential, but might be nice).

Or should I just face up to the fact that properly good long lenses are always going to be out of my budget and try to get better with what I've got?

I have a 18-200VR and always get comments on size of lens.

Until….

Went to Farne islands a month ago. Jeez theres some big lenses taken to those islands! Got talking to one guy with a Nikkor 400mm prime (about £4500 by all accounts!!) Wife had a look through it and went…wow thats amazing! It made the image from my 18-200 look like a cheap point and shoot!

So, while there is no prospect of me ever spending that much on a lens, the chief of the treasury does accept that there is better than my lens and accepts in principle that I can get a nice fat telephoto at some point in the future.

I know this doesn't help you choose. Can't remember the model, but there was one on Warehouse Express that was an f2.8 that looked interesting. But I think it wasn't SWM or VR.

rental people, rental. check out fixationuk.com for an excellent range of glass at very reasonable rates. Best thing is if you pick your lens up on a Friday (after 5pm) and drop it off on Monday morning (before 10am) all you pay for is 1 day (eg. £50 for a 600mm F4 IS, a £7000+ lens). I've rented all sorts of things from these guys, their service is very good 😀

Yeah, I'd love something like that but I don't get the chance to take anywhere near enough photos to even remotely justify it.
If I ever go on an highlands tour or on safari again, then I'd probably look at renting something huge and fast.

But in the meantime I'm after a relatively inexpensive (i.e. ~£400 or preferably lower) for occasional hobby use.

Yeah, there's also lensesforhire that seem pretty reasonable (although never used them).

AF on a lens that goes from 70-300 is never going to be blisteringly quick, due to the range it has to cover.
Are you sure that the softness above 200mm is the lens, or is it camera shake? It's pretty hard to get steady shots at long zooms & the max aperture doesn't really help matters. Might be worth doing some tripod shots for comparison. Problem with it is, you could probably reduce the lens softness by using f/8 or so, but then unless it's really bright conditions you're gonna have to whack up the ISO or settle for a longer shutter speed, and then you're kinda back to square one.
VR really helps.

I've got the 70-300 VR Nikon lens and it's pretty good. I can try & fish out some pics to e-mail over if you want? Might find time this evening. E-mail me, via my profile if you want a couple of examples. Only problem is, most are motorsport & won't be pin sharp due to my cak panning technique!

stumpy01: thanks. Yeah I've had a look on flickr etc at images from this lens and it looks pretty good. But then some people seem to manage pretty well with the old G lens too, so maybe I just suck 🙂

Wobbly hands is definitely an issue at that sort of length and aperture, but I've tried shooting from a tripod, stopping down and using a remote to avoid shake, and it still seems pretty soft compared to my other lenses.

I've got the same lens as you and my father has the modern VR lens.

His lens handles much better than mine. Quicker to focus and the VR makes a big difference on a long lens.

I have no experience of the optical differences but reviews say the newer lens is pretty decent all round, a noticeable step up.

However I have no plans to upgrade as my cheap lens is perfectly adequate for static subjects up to 200mm. If anything I'd be tempted by the 55-200 VR rather than the new 70-300. Actually I'd love a 70-200 f4 at a sensible price but they don't make one.

For me it's not worth the upgrade.

I've got the Nikkor 18-135 zoom (non VR) and the 70-300mm VR as already mentioned.
I'd say that they are pretty similar in terms of sharpness, although I don't tend to examine things too critically.
I'd expect prime lenses to be a fair bit sharper though – I borrowed a Sigma 105mm macro from a friend a while back & that was excellent.

Perhaps you should hire the 70-300 VR lens for a weekend & do some direct comparison shots? You should then be able to see if it's worth it for not a lot of outlay.

donald: yeah I did wonder about the 18-200mm. Not sure if I'd miss the extra 100mm given that it is damn hard to handhold at that range and I rarely carry my tripod.

stumpy01: yeah, a rental/test drive sounds like a plan.

Thanks all.

I have the 70-300 VR (on a D200). It's better than I expected given the reviews I'd read.

I'm a bit of a luddite, and for many things I'd rather use my old and very good MF primes, but that's only a temperamental choice (I ride SS as well…). I don't see enough – sure there's some, but not enough – image quality difference up to 200mm to make me choose a prime *just* for the quality, and I can't afford a top notch 300mm prime to compare, though the 70-300 does stand up perfectly well against my MF 300/4.5, and it's a fair bit smaller.

The VR makes it very handholdable even at full stretch, but isn't a replacement for a wide aperture.

Definitely worth a test drive if you can.

I borrowed a 70-300VR for a recent trip to Africa and found that I really needed the zoom range for half decent shots of birds etc. Would have loved something even longer, but think that the lens is a good compromise of cost and range.

Left the VR off most of the time (it was usually pretty sunny) and when I did come to use it wasn't that impressed to be honest – getting shake at the speeds they claim should be achievable. Was just handholding though, might be better on a beanbag.

Shots were cr*p anyway as it was really too dark, not sure that VR is all it's cracked up to be, might get you a stop or two but not a slower speed and at that point it probably is too dark to be taking pictures. Guess it also uses a fair bit of battery getting the gyroscopes (?) spinning up?

Also struggling to justify the cost hike to a bright 300mm so may well get one myself.

There is a 70-200mm f2.8 by sigma which used to be reasonable price (not checked it since everything has gone up), mind you it would be more fitting on a full frame camera. Personally i would never ever go for a superzoom (e.g 18-200), as the quality is really sacrificed.

I have that Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and it is a superb bit of glass. I also have a 2x teleconverter that makes it an effective 140-400mm f5.6, stop it down to f8 and its pretty good, but not mindblowing. I also have the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 which isn't bad, but I rate the 70-200 as a better lens.

VR works well if your subject doesn't move, as the shutter speeds can be longer, but there is no substitute for big apertures to get faster shutter speeds in low light.