Nikon zoom Lens advice needed.

i have the nikkor 70-300 vr and although i am a bunny i have to say i am impressed with the lense for the money paid.

when i first got the lense i took a series of pics of a crane on a building site that was a good 90-100 meters away at 70mm and then at 300mm on an overcast day and was floored when i looked at the 300mm pic and saw surface rust staining on the paint of the boom...

a crop of the 300mm pic at 100%

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...1&d=1301571056

the pic of the crane at 70mm

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...1&d=1301571201

This plane was about 300 meters from me and moving fast.
The shot is @ 300mm. I guess that is a good quality image and good enough for sport photography.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...015/01/230.jpg

70-200 f2.8 is boss.

Not sure about your screw thread lubricant question.

Difference between the VR and the VR II i belive is an upgrade in VR and the VR II has less vignetting (which you won't notice on the D90 anway because of the crop sensor)

Sigma is pretty good, small and light. I didn't got sigma because I had heard lots of people complain about front or back focusing issues, also sigma isn't quite as sharp as nikon.

Tamron have the sharpest, but it has the worst AF in the world (incredibly slow and noisy).

You can look at some cheaper non VR or OS or IS whatever you want to call it. If your using it primarily for sports VR is just going to slow down focus and since your probably shooting at 1/500s or higher its not going to help sharpen your shots.

non vr lenses would be Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AFS (what i've got)
Sigma also make a non OS 70-800mm.

In summary...
f2.8 or go home.
VR not necessary
No scew drive lenses AF-D (will be too slow on your D90)
Nikon over 3rd party lenses anyday... cept Zeiss.. Who wants to get me a 100mm f2 :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RR5L

I was looking for info on both and others, as well as the thread issue on the nikkor 70-200.

The budget can deal with the expence what I dont want to do is over spend for marginal improvement.

---

In that case I'd definitely look at the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII or if you can pick one up still the older VR model. Put a TC on it and it is still sharp and fast.

Whilst the 70-300 is arguably as sharp for most of its range it is a slower lens with a variable aperture and definitely not as fast to focus.

So, Ive gone and done it, I got a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8g VR of Ebay which is in almost new condition. Very happy with the first shots off it. Thanks to all who share thier thoughts.

Instead of suggesting a specific lense I will make a suggestion from a differnt angle.

Any of the F2.8 lenses are very fast, they can also be used in low light and still take good shots - this is why the pro's use them mostly for sport / action type photos, unfortunately they are also the most expensive.

If money, relatively speaking no object I would be looking very hard at the nikon 400mm VRII prime it's probably one of the best super telephoto made, or a bit slower but still an outstanding lense is the 200 400mm as mentioned the 400 prime can be hand held the zoom really needs a monopod, but if you can afford one of them (I can't but am working on it) then you will have an outstanding lense that will last for years and years.

Ooops missed the last post

Hey Rob if you dont mind my asking how much did you end up paying for it?

and of course Rob, we need pics of the gear for gear junkies like myself :D :rulez:

I am changing my thoughts on the type of lenses I get and this is going to be one of them once my finances are healthy again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitz

Hey Rob if you dont mind my asking how much did you end up paying for it?

---

Hey Blitz,

I picked mine up for $1600 which was in mint condition. Alot of money I know but when compared to what the VRII is selling for it seemed like a good deal.

I watched Ebay since and seen them go for more than that. It allowed me to pick up a Nikon 50mm 1.4 D for my kit and still come under my budget.