Nikon 70-300mm: Hey Hoggers asking the real experts. I have been looking at Nikons 70-300mm lens for my 7200 I see a f/4.5-5.6e edif vr cost 596 and a f/4.5-5.6g e cost 396 what is the...

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Hey Hoggers asking the real experts. I have been looking at Nikons 70-300mm lens for my 7200 I see a f/4.5-5.6e edif vr cost 596 and a f/4.5-5.6g e cost 396 what is the difference why is it 200 more? Is the latter that much better?
Thanks

Hangingon Loc: NW North Dakota

You didn’t list all of the information but I am guessing that the cheaper one is a DX lens and the other a full frame FX.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Royce Moss wrote:

Hey Hoggers asking the real experts. I have been looking at Nikons 70-300mm lens for my 7200 I see a f/4.5-5.6e edif vr cost 596 and a f/4.5-5.6g e cost 396 what is the difference why is it 200 more? Is the latter that much better?
Thanks

One has a VR the other one does not.
VR is Nikons image stabilization and helps reduce motion blur when you shoot. It also allows for a lower shutter speed so you can gain some light when shooting in low light condition.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Royce Moss wrote:

Hey Hoggers asking the real experts. I have been looking at Nikons 70-300mm lens for my 7200 I see a f/4.5-5.6e edif vr cost 596 and a f/4.5-5.6g e cost 396 what is the difference why is it 200 more? Is the latter that much better?
Thanks

The Nikkor 70-300 is a bit of a minefield !

Perhaps this article will help you through it .......

https://dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-300mm-f45-56-af-p.html

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

craggycrossers wrote:

The Nikkor 70-300 is a bit of a minefield !

Perhaps this article will help you through it .......

https://dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-300mm-f45-56-af-p.html

I can’t add anything to Thom Hogan’s excellent explanation, except to say that the FX 70-300 Af-p also pairs well with Z bodies (with the FTZ adapter), especially the Z50. Highly recommended.

Ourspolair

I own a 70-300 4.6-5.6 G VR ED IF and a much older 75-300 lens without the VR.
Both are excellent glass.
There is also a VR II version, with which I have no experience.
They are both full-frame (FX) lenses and I use them both on my D90, D5500 and on my full-frame Sony A7c manually with an adapter.
You would be wise to get the VR version, since it will give you an advantage of a few stops because of the VR and allow you to use it for hand-held shots in most normal-light situations.

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Thanks for the replies guys however I'm still somewhat confused. I get the vr and non vr difference but I see 2 vr lenses. One priced at $396 and one at $596. Sure I want a vr but why is one of the vr's $200 more? Is the only reason because it was designed for fx? I want the best quality lens of the 2 but I don't plan to go to fx unless I get a windfall so if that is the only difference I could use the $200 for other gear. Thanks

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

Royce, which lens is correct depends on where you wish to go. I have the D7100 and DX18-300 with VR. I love the lens; it is my go anywhere camera\lens. The lens short coming is it is not great in low light. I knew where I was going and invested thereafter in only FX lens. In 2019, I upgraded to D850 and also made the decision to go DSLR instead of mirrorless. You can invest in the DX now and down the road chose the best path for yourself without over-investing today.

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Hi Cliff thanks for the reply. I plan to stay with Dx and my 7200. I have researched the 18-300 I have the 18-140 as my walk around daytime lens but want a little more reach. All the research I have read says the 70-300 is pretty sharp to about 275 which is fine with me, My only ?? is the 2 vr lenses one is $396 the other is $596.

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

Royce, you are on the right track with the only concern inherent low light issues (regardless of which lens). It should be the same for both lens. I like the VR feature, but with exceptions. Tripod...turn it off, it can actually be a small problem. Shooting small birds in flight, turn it off, this allows the AF to do is job quicker. I have the "holy trinity" of Nikon zooms and still turn off VR as described above. Royce, you may already be doing this, but back button focusing and the 18-300 is a great combination.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

Hi Royce, if you're looking for a cheap lens, see if you can find a Nikon 55-300mm..a cheap "kit" lens but it's brilliant...everyone on this site that has one raves about it...
I also have the 70-300mm but find myself reaching for the 55-300mm more often...

(Download)

(Download)

70-300mm
70-300mm...

(Download)

55-300
55-300...

(Download)

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Not looking for a cheapo just a solid big zoom I had the Sigma 150-600 for a minute and loved it but I developed a sciatica problem and could not get out to make good use of it. A few years ago I had a 7100 + 55-300 before it got stolen so I'll most likely get 70-300. Just trying to figure out which one

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Not looking for a cheapo per say just a solid big zoom. I had the Sigma 150-600 for a minute and loved it but I developed a sciatica problem and could not get out to make good use of it. A few years ago I had a 7100 + 55-300 before it got stolen so I'll most likely get 70-300. Just trying to figure out which one

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Royce Moss wrote:

Not looking for a cheapo per say just a solid big zoom. I had the Sigma 150-600 for a minute and loved it but I developed a sciatica problem and could not get out to make good use of it. A few years ago I had a 7100 + 55-300 before it got stolen so I'll most likely get 70-300. Just trying to figure out which one

Royce - have you read and understood the article by Thom Hogan I sent you above?

And the link within that article regarding compatibility of AF-P lenses with your camera ?

When you have fully understood everything it should become clear which is the most appropriate 70-300 lens for you.

jlocke Loc: Austin, TX

Here's the 'quick' reference from the linked article:

So, to be clear, here are the five 70-300mm lenses Nikon currently sells:

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR (US$500) covers DX/FX (model 2161)
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G (US$173) covers DX/FX (model 1928)
70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G AF-P (US$350) covers DX (model 20061)
70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G AF-P VR (US$400) covers DX (model 20062)
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E AF-P VR (US$750) covers DX/FX (model 20068)

I don't usually put buying recommendations in the first part of my reviews, but the complexity Nikon has introduced here has forced me to deal with that:

Do not buy #2 or #3. No VR in a telephoto lens that you might handhold is a mistake. Plus #2 is seriously not capable of handling the pixel count of the latest DSLRs.

If you own a camera not in the AF-P compatibility list above, your best choice is #1. It might prove satisfactory with your current older DSLR—particularly 6mp and 12mp ones—but isn't going to grow with you if you buy a new DSLR.

And as I noted above, buy #4 if you have a compatible DX body and aren't likely to move to FX any time soon.