flygirl, those images are amazingly sharp. I don't question the utility of the70-300VR in good lighting. You and others have shown that in that environment it is very capable of wonderful images. In fact I may very well still get the 70-300VR thanks to pictures like yours. My only concern is that I do shoot some of my kids events outdoors and in less than ideal lighting and the VR won't get me the shutterspeed that I need to stop motion. I shoot a 85 1.8 for my indoor events and find that the 1.8 is even not eneogh in some poorly lit gymnasiums and schools. That is the reason I am also considering the 80-200 2.8. Thanks again flygirl for sharing the images and for the comments.
hmmm... interesting. I thought it would have been more significant.Also, as lens manufactures have said, making big lenses DX only gives them a slight reduction in size and weight, and its not worth it over reducing compatibility.
I'll have to disagree with that statement. While the 80-200 is indeed built with the usual Nikon pro construction, the 70-300 certainly does not have a 'cheap' build.David,
....the 70-300mm VR is built pretty cheap....
Personally the 70-300 VR is a great lens and I love it and probably will never get rid of it. Unfortunately though it is slow at f/5.6 at 300mm and I find myself more times than not at too slow of a shutter speed when I'm zoomed all the way in, even if it's sunny out. Thus, I have just traded my Sigma 50-150 for a Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens. This will give me both lenses to use...and I plan on buying a used 180 f/2.8 lens for a nice smaller lightweight f/2.8 tele that I can take to ballgames and such without having to whip out the big lens. :biggrin:peet, what about the 70-300vr want you to go to the 80-200 2.8? I like the size, IQ, price, and focal length of the 70-300vr however i am afraid I will miss the 2.8 aperature of the 80-200. I also worry that I may not feel comfortable carrying such a big lens around in public as the 80-200.
Well, to be honest I would rarely use 2.8 with my wildlife. For most of my wildlife shots it would be too little DOF. But, on the other hand, I do have the 300 2.8 for that if needed. I think the 2.8 comes in handy for action shots, especially at night under lights and indoors.Nancy:
Its also the creative control that the f2.8 gives you. The ability to blur the background and isolate the subject is often a critical aspect of wildlife photography. Of course its also why a f2.8 300 is four times the cost of the f4 version
I do try to have all the windows cleaned before going out. The Cirrus does not have vent windows. I am looking forward to getting some shots from the air when I am in Alaska in a few weeks:biggrin:.Nancy
Shooting from a plane the 70-300VR is hard to beat . I have a Warrior and have to shoot thru the vent window.