# Nikon 70-300VR wanted



## James_R (Jun 28, 2007)

Been looking at one of these for a while, thinking, come March I'll buy one.

I could have got one around xmas time for £280, then just after went up on average to £310.

Now I am looking at £370!! Some retailers are asking £450+ !!! I think a lot of suppliers are using the "exchange rate" etc to artificially bump up the prices of their existing stock. Which they would have been buying in a lot cheaper even as recent as a month ago.

Any one have any recommendations of who to try? Like i say, Jacobs and Jessops are around the £370 mark.

It will be going on my D80 :thumb:


----------



## SBerlyn (Nov 9, 2008)

Hi,
Cheapest for that lens at the moment is about £355 via Dixons (http://www.dixons.co.uk/product.php?sku=785558&source_id=aw&camp_id=DVD Bargains) then using the code MARCH2 for a discount. Not much cheaper than what you've seen elsewhere, though.

Last year I bought a late 90s 80-200/2.8, and it's absolutely brilliant. Granted it doesn't have VR, but with the constant f/2.8 aperture you can handhold at much lower shutter speeds.

Also, you've got beautiful bokeh for portraits towards the 135-150/2.8 territory.

It weighs a lot, though, and takes professional (77mm) filters...

However, on the plus side, I only paid £269 delivered from mine from a very reputable secondhand dealer, with a 6 month guarantee. Needless to say, even with pro usage, I've not had any problems with it - it really is built like a tank.

S


----------



## James_R (Jun 28, 2007)

Thanks for the info :thumb:

I will have a look at Dixons. Have found it at HiDigital.co.uk at Belfast for £299.

Would rather pick one up from a retailer nearby though.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

It's a number of things affecting the price,

1) the dollar vs the pound.
2) Nikon had a 15% across the range price increase in february


----------



## singlespeed (Sep 12, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> It's a number of things affecting the price,
> 
> 1) the dollar vs the pound.
> 2) Nikon had a 15% across the range price increase in february


And another price increase that has just been released, so get one now whilst you can...

"JAA795DA 70-300MM AFS-VR F4.5-5.6G IF-ED 529.99"

Once any existing stock has been sold, the RRP is £529.99 :doublesho


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Have you looked at the Sigma or Tamron equiv.?

Can save you a fair few ££.

My level of photography means i wouldn't notice the difference. You may well though. 

The prices are silly atm. 

I'm looking at the 18-200mm VR as a jack of all trades as i cannot afford a wider lens range than 1.


----------



## singlespeed (Sep 12, 2007)

Gruffs said:


> Have you looked at the Sigma or Tamron equiv.?
> 
> Can save you a fair few ££.
> 
> ...


As you say, " have you looked at the Sigma"





































All taken with the 18-200mm OS version. Not too bad :thumb:


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

... and it's a danger of "jack of all trades, master of none" IMO, though I'll agree that those shots are not bad at all. A colleague has this lens and has regretted it since day 1, I've gone over to primes as far as possible.

Bret


----------



## singlespeed (Sep 12, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> ... and it's a danger of "jack of all trades, master of none" IMO, though I'll agree that those shots are not bad at all. A colleague has this lens and has regretted it since day 1, I've gone over to primes as far as possible.
> 
> Bret


Quite true. However if compared against the Nikor 18-200VR, the Sigma 18-200 OS is reasonable value. Neither of them will have superb image quality as there must be a load of compromises to cover the range from wide to telephoto. In practice, the Nikon _just_ has the edge ( from reports ) , whilst the Sigma is quite a few pounds less and works reasonably well unless you need the better f5.6 aparture of the Nikon at 200mm, versus f6.3 on the Sigma. The above pics were taken with a D60, but I haven't tried the lens on the D300 yet, to see if things can be improved.

I have since got a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 which is ultimately a better image, but obviously lacks the range of the Sigma, doesn't have OS, is twice the size and 3 times the weight. Now I need to get hold of something to fill the 20-70mm range before selling the Siggy. Horses for courses realy.

Sorry for heading off the original thread 

Edit.
Bretti. Was the lens you mentioned the Sigma 18-200 DC OS HSM version for a nikon, as the non HSM version isn't as good at auto-focusing and the non OS version obviously doesn't have image stabilisation which i found was worth at least 2 stops, maybe 3. Just a thought, so comparisons are fair.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

.. I don't know, I'd have to ask. The 70-200 2.8 is on my list of things to try, but I have a 50-200 and use it rarely; the 135 hasn't really been off the cam recently. I've found it easier to not be able to zoom; I'm then worried about timing rather than framing, which with moving objects makes things easier 

End of the day, I think IQ has a lot to say here and your personal expectations. The prices for some lenses really have gone up; check out BH or adorama and see what they have to offer. Keh.com also has some interesting stuff. I am looking for a reasonably priced 200 f/4 and then I think an 85/f2. I might also have found a 55/f1.2 which would be fan-diddly-tastic.

Don't forget, too, that each lens gives you its own way of looking at the world. The shots I did at the weekend are really sharp, incredibly so for a twenty-year old lens. But it adds its tone and flavour to the pic (20-year old mild sepia...) and it demands more of me. I've grown as a result and that's very cool. The 50 demands something else and the 24 bends the world. It's lovely when you know about it and can work with it to get a desired effect. I can see the need for 300, but most of the work *I *do right now is close up and therefore it's simply not needed.

Bret


----------



## James_R (Jun 28, 2007)

singlespeed said:


> As you say, " have you looked at the Sigma"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cracking shot singlespeed! :thumb:

I have the 18-200 OS Sigma lens and after reading the reviews it comprehensively beats the Nikon 18-200VR. Has the highest resolution of all tested [WDC xmas08]

Managed to get mine for £249 from Jessops early december 

I like it, good lens, OS is very dependable and i find gives a good three stops. Plus you can leave it on the camera virtually all the time.


----------



## singlespeed (Sep 12, 2007)

James_R said:


> Cracking shot singlespeed! :thumb:
> 
> I have the 18-200 OS Sigma lens and after reading the reviews it comprehensively beats the Nikon 18-200VR. Has the highest resolution of all tested [WDC xmas08]
> 
> ...


Thank James. I did a bit of PP to this photo, to burn the sky in the lower right corner and I also cut the moon from the 5 frame HDR conversion that I tried. The HDR wasn't too good overall, but the moon was ace.

The Sigma 18-200 tests that I read, rated id fairly well, but they did say it was softer than the Nikon, especialy in the middle of the range. However the distortion and aberation was significantly better than the Nikon throughout the range.

Now then... Back on topic. For the 70-300mm range with stabilisation, the Nikon doesn't have any direct competition, as the Tamron and Sigma versions are both unstabilised but are significantly cheaper If your only shooting from a static tripod then this could be a good saving as you would have the VR switched off anyway.

For the Nikon, keep an eye on the linked page as the cheapest suppliers are changing fast due to old stock at pre-rise prices being sold and new stock coming in at the hefty new price. Companies that were at the top are plumetting down the table when they sell out and their new stock comes in. Dixons are out of stock already 

Camera Price buster - Nikon 70-300VR


----------



## freon warrior (May 31, 2006)

I have been on the look out for one of these recently too. One on ebay went very quickly as a 'buy it now' for sub £300!


----------



## James_R (Jun 28, 2007)

I managed to get one from Jessops at the weekend. They said £429!!! I haggled and managed to get it for £369.

Not used it in anger yet, so sit tight, I'll post up opinions and pics after a field test. :thumb:


----------

