File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What does /p/ think of the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR?I can afford one in 3 months time.

I will probably want to use it at the full 300mm so could you say whether or not it has problems at that range

It's either that or the 18-200mm VR at the end of the year.
>> Anonymous
Well, if it's designed for 70-300 range, why would it have problems anywhere? Especially if it's Nikkor?

Personally, I'd opt for the 18-200. The guy I work for has one and does the majority of his work with it and has had it for years.
>> Anonymous
From what I heard it's a pretty sharp lens,

not as sharp as the Nikon 70-200mm AF-s VR but close enough for the money your spending.
>> Anonymous
I'd rather get the 70-300 because you probably already have another lens / lenses to fill in the below 70 area and getting the 18-200 to replace them all isn't a good idea. I've used the non-VR one and was satisfied with it. Great tele zoom for the price.
>> Anonymous
If you have a midrange zoom lens already, grab the 70-300mm
>> Anonymous
??????????
?This is an----?
?AIDS virus-..?
?Copy it--help?
?it spread---...?
??????????
>> Anonymous
I sold mine after one year of use. I decided I'd rather not shoot with it if I had the choice. Luckily I didn't take much loss when selling it, so I don't really mind :)

It's pitch dark (f5.6), soft at 300 - why buy a 300mm if it's "unusable" (at least on DX digital)? AF was slow and made a whining noise once in a while. VR worked ok but didn't help since I don't photograph that much static subjects...

Of course I bought the lens before knowing anything about photography ;-)