Jbat Loc: Charleston, SC

Another option you might consider is the Nikon 28-300. I love it for travel and landscapes. Not sure what used pricing might be but it sure has the right range for what you want to do.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Sure, every "travel and landscape" photographer wants one of those! :roll:

Seriously, even a 70-300mm seems a bit longer than usual or necessary for most travel and landscape work. Not sayin' it can't be used for those purposes... just that it seems a rather unusual choice.

I do happen to carry a 300mm and even a 1.4X to use with it when I travel, but I shoot wildlife quite a bit. If I were just shooting scenics and people and cities, I'd emphasize the wide end and might not need any longer than 135mm, or 200mm at most (on FF). In fact, when I travel with a FF camera, I usually take 20mm, 24-70/2.8, 135mm, 300mm and a 1.4X teleconverter to use on the 300mm and, pretty rarely, the 135mm.

Personally I hate "do-everything" zooms that try to go from wide angle to telephoto (28-300, and such). In my experience, they don't do anything particularly well and, even if they do manage decent image quality, will usually have to compromise a lot in other ways... such as slow, variable apertures. I have not used the Nikon 28-300mm in particular, so it might be better than most... I dunno. But another consideration is that when traveling and "street shooting" I prefer smaller, less intrusive lenses.

Today's zooms are much better than they were 10 or 20 years ago, but I still try to stick with 3X and perhaps 4X at most with a tele-zooms and even 2X or less with wide angle.

Deecee

Take a look at the used section for B&H Photo. I have bought several lenses over the years from their used department and have never had any issues. Here's a link for the lens you are looking for. It's a "9" condition, which means it will look brand new, probably just missing the box.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801313263-USE/nikon_2161_af_s_vr_zoom_nikkor_70_300mm.html

tuck Loc: Haverhill Massachusetts

I own a 70-300vr and will highly recommend it .I shoot full frame (D750 Nikon). best deals I find (used)is E Bay.

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

Also check out Adorama. I got an excellent used Tamron 200-500mm there. Great lens, and I thought in better condition than they rated it.

ron

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

the quality of your lenses should always come before the price, save up and buy the best you can buy in the focal range you desire. you may change camera bodies many times, but your lenses will be your most costly expense and should be purchased with care. they will transfer to any upgrade to the camera body in the future. nothing wrong with used lenses, they can be purchased on ebay, b&h photo, or adorama with confidence. if you are shooting with a dx camera body, still purchase fx lenses, they will work on a dx body, but if you ever change to a full frame body, you will not need to reinvest in lenses.

tuck Loc: Haverhill Massachusetts

Make sure the 70-300 is VR. Very important.

mmeador

I think it is a good lense. I would like a faster lense but it would blow your $600 budget. I don't think you could go wrong with this lense.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Check out LensScore and DXOmark before you buy.

You will get varying opinions here, some reliable and some not.

Raleigh Loc: Reside in Olympia WA

There is a used Nikon 70-300 for $100. in Craigs List in Olympia, WA. You can check my 70-300 Tamron for sale here.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Nikon has the 70-300 VR refurbished on their site for about $300. (90 day warranty I believe) That is a better deal than buying a used lens, except possibly from KEH. Good as it is for a relatively inexpensive lens the 70-300 has a reputation for the VR module failing eventually and causing excessive vibration. Mine just did and Nikon charged me $200. to fix it. A friend noticed his had AF and VR some "off" and sent his to Nikon for a $100. tuneup. I doubt if the third party equivalent lenses are any more reliable. The lens is $497. new at B & H, with 5 year warranty. Obviously that warranty is worth something, especially if the lens is going to get heavy use, as mine does.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Save $$$ now, and if image quality is important, avoid a 70-300. It's merely ok at shorter focal lengths, and worst at 300. A far better choice in the same price range might be an older 80-200 F2.8 AF-D, which requires a focusing motor in the body, which your camera probably has. Image quality, even with a 1.4x TC is likely to be better than the 70-300, and the viewfinder will be one stop brighter at 280mm. There are several versions - and the sharpest of them all is the one-ring version that uses the ring to focus and zoom - the two ring version does have an issue with the AF/MF ring - which has a tendency to crack and break, requiring an expensive repair. Either way, the lens should cost around $500 or less.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

If we haven't talked you out of Nikon's 70-300 VR have a look at Rockwell's comprehensive review

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

and his review of the much heavier (by more than a pound) 80-200 s

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

after reading these have a look at these shots both taken at 240mm with my 70-300 VR. If they are good enough for you you will be happy with the 70-300 at least for a while...especially if you carefully sharpen in PP.

(Download)


(Download)