Discussion
I've decided I want to buy a 70-300mm lens for my Nikon D7000 but there are 3 options which all seem to have identical specs. Nikkor offer their own with Sigma and Tamron also offering their own versions.
All seem to be in the same price bracket and I'm struggling to see any real differences between them or one with a clear advantage.
Anyone with any advice which to go for?
All seem to be in the same price bracket and I'm struggling to see any real differences between them or one with a clear advantage.
Anyone with any advice which to go for?
RobDickinson said:
The tamron is damned good, better than the non L canon easily, don't know how it compares to the Nikon
Yep. Just make sure its the VC version and not the cheap Tamron one. Seems to be pretty much level pegging with the Nikon VR. I've got the Nikon though because I'm a snob! 
I had the Sigma 70-300mm APO version (non VR), I managed to break it and so I just replaced it with the Nikon 70-300mm VR had it's first outing yesterday at the Air Race in Ascot and it was great, can't fault it at all for the money. That's on a D7000, I don't think you'd regret going for the Nikon lens over the others when looking at the 70-300mm.
Cheers for the info guys.
So seems I may as well go for the Nikkor if the Sigma or Tamron offer no advantages. Will probs hold it's value better being a Nikkor afterall.
Not sure on the purchase now afterall. I've currently got the 18-105 on my D7000 and was looking to switch that for a sigma 17-70 and get the 70-300 to compliment it but after a bit of looking around, I'm pretty much sold on the Nikkor 16-85, but that's gonna wipe out my 70-300 budget
...
1st world problems eh?..
So seems I may as well go for the Nikkor if the Sigma or Tamron offer no advantages. Will probs hold it's value better being a Nikkor afterall.
Not sure on the purchase now afterall. I've currently got the 18-105 on my D7000 and was looking to switch that for a sigma 17-70 and get the 70-300 to compliment it but after a bit of looking around, I'm pretty much sold on the Nikkor 16-85, but that's gonna wipe out my 70-300 budget
...1st world problems eh?..
ManFromDelmonte said:
Nikon 70-300 VR is a great lens for the money (make sure you get the VR version).
As I say to all Nikon DX users, the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX is another cheap (140ish) lens that is absolutely great and might mean your 18-105mm can pick up the slack for a bit longer.
Yeah I've owned a 35mm in the past and it was a very good lens and I intend to purchase again at some point.As I say to all Nikon DX users, the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX is another cheap (140ish) lens that is absolutely great and might mean your 18-105mm can pick up the slack for a bit longer.
I don't like the 18-105 because I find it very soft at the wide end. Totally useless for landscape photography which I do quite a bit of. I used to own a Nikkor 18-70mm which was superb. I'm tempted to replace it with one of those in all honesty. I can do without the VR. Never had it before and have it turned off most of the time on the 18-105. My issue is that it's a 7 year old design intended for 6mp cameras and so on a 16mp camera, it's likely to bring out the worst in it. The 16-85 though is reported to be superb on 16 and 24mp nikons so probably worth the £250 second hand price tag, although my dilema is that I can get a sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 (non stablised) for under £200 and I wouldn't complain about the faster apertures. It's supposed to be a good, sharp lens too, although the same issue as the Nikkor with it being an older design and the newer, higher MP sensors brining out the worst in older designs...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff