RCJets Loc: Virginia

I am currently shooting with a Nikon 70-300, and I'm not happy with it at the 300 mm FL. It was probably one of the earlier ones, as I've had it for at least four or five years. I'm considering the Nikon 18-300 DX for my D7100. I have heard it is a very sharp lens.

I'm also considering the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens, or the 28 - 400mm, which I have also read a lot of good things about. As always, as a retiree, cost is a factor. Your comments regarding each would be appreciated. I'm leaning towards the Tamron, as the focal range would really come in handy.

TIA.

Joe

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Joe, Is the 200-500 Nikon in your budget. Great lens. Sharp through entire range

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What are your subjects / purpose for 300mm? Do you have an example you can share that demonstrates what you consider the weaknesses of your current lens, being sure to store the unedited file.

Neither of your candidate lenses is a likely upgrade in image quality. The AF-P version of the 70-300 is probably your best option, but not if 300mm is too short for your actual purposes. Looking for more details.

Craigdca Loc: California

You may already know more than me about camera shake, but at longer FLs it’s been one of my greatest challenges. Try the most stable options to anchor that camera down, use all the tricks of a solid camera mount, remote trigger and mirror up position, fast shutter speed, etc to ensure the problem is definitely in the lens and not the tripod or those camera settings.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tamron 100-400, also consider the latest/current Nikon 70-300 FX lens. I can also recommend the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 for the wide end.
.

RCJets Loc: Virginia

Thanks to all who replied. I have posted on UHH a series of bluebirds on a post. They were taken at a distance of under twenty feet from a tripod mount with a remote shutter release. I have read several suggestions on what I could try to get a sharper shot, including checking for front or back focus. I haven't checked that yet, but will. As for my budget, I'm trying to hold it to around $600.

Thanks again for your comments. Any more suggestions are welcome.

Joe

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Can you post or send to me directly the original unedited version of the first bluebird from this post?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-588601-1.html

I'd like to see where the focus was placed as well as the editing possibilities. The LR data says this started as a NEF. Check the original file size as NEF and see if smaller than 20MB as you can post that file to UHH. Otherwise, we can set up a dropbox to send.

The softness isn't directly due to the lens. The model is the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, much sharper in example images on Rockwell's review, for sake of comparison. Your LR edit gives a lot of information about the LR edited, but the original Nikon information has been striped.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If you like sharp, consistent results, get the Nikon 200-500 mm lens. You will thank me after you take your first shot. It is that sharp.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

The Tamron 100-400 is an excellent telephoto lens that is easily able to be used without a tripod if you wish. I have the wonderful 500mm PF, but still use the 100-400 if the situation warrants a zoom lens.

Moondoggie Loc: Southern California

I have the Tamron 18-400mm and like the flexibility and weight of this lens. It also fit my budget at the time. The picture quality is pretty good for me and I’m happy with my results if I do my job as a photographer.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Keep in mind that there are few (if any) zoom lenses that are great at the extremes of their ranges. If you need 300mm you may need a zoom that goes well past that point.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Joe, whatever you choose to do, stick with Nikon lenses. A bit of research will reveal why they are superior to the after market variety. Secondly, make sure your shutter speed is adequate for the 300mm FL. Slight movement of the camera during exposure can cause all kinds of unsharp looking images.
--Bob

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Producing an image at long distances has a number of things that impact the result. Long range target shooting has brought me a better understanding for using 'high power' scopes to zoom in at targets several hundreds of yards away. One of course is that every heartbeat is amplified as the crosshair dances around the target...and even off the target. Even when secured in a rest it is still connected to the body with the hand and finger on the trigger (or shutter in this case).

Then we come to realize that the air between the shooter and the target is a fluid in motion. The air that comes in contact with the earth warms faster than that that does not. As the air warms it expands and becomes less dense and starts to rise. Because we can not have a vacuum, the cooler air above it drops to take its place. These rising and falling air currents cause "shimmer" which appears in the form of a blur. It is an effect that is noticable in even the finest optics. Of course there is also the "soup" of dust, pollen and even smog in the hundreds of yards between us and the target.

Testing optics in a lab against a known standard is far different than what we may encounter in its ever so varied use. If there is a way to set the camera on a tripod and use the camera timer or remote release taking a picture of newsprint set at a distance where 300mm will be the minimum distance of focus would be a fair way of evaluating how sharp it may be compared to trying to shoot a bird 100-yards flying away from the camera.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hopefully, you'll try posting some example pictures, that are free for help on this site, rather than buying a new lens. Do you have sharp images from this lens in other non-wildlife situations? The Y / N to this question will help us focus more specifically on the technique used for these bluebird images.