nikon d3500 zoom lens (Page 2): Acat1234: If I were you I would keep it. No VR...learn to use appropriate shutter time and to hold it steady. VR didn’t exist on film cameras and people...

Elmerviking

Acat1234:
If I were you I would keep it. No VR...learn to use appropriate shutter time and to hold it steady. VR didn’t exist on film cameras and people used long lenses all the time! A monopod can actually be a good help, if you learn how to use it.
Selling the lens? Well, on eBay you can buy a used one for $75! Is it worth selling it and get another lens?
Not in my opinion. I suggest you try it out and later decide if it is good enough for you or not. Most beginners NEVER blow up more than 8x10, and you’ll find it hard to see differences between lenses at that magnification!
Don’t worry...be happy!😊

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Elmerviking wrote:

Acat1234: br If I were you I would keep it. No VR.... (show quote)

I agree. Have shot motor sports with the non vr 70-300. Fast shutter speeds and bright sunny day makes it very nice and sharp. Not worth selling but can be used to its advantages.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

not that long we had no VR people to day are just to dependent on teck.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

IDguy wrote:

Because it isn’t VR. I think it underhanded the way Nikon promotes beginner packages with a non VR 300mm lens. The VR version, which is very nice, is only $50 more.

The Nikon photos prominantly show the VR on the 18-55, but place the 70-300 so you can’t see where the VR should be. It is done to decieve newbies.

Six years ago, I bought a D3100 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-300 VR in a package. I use the 50-300 a lot and find it to be a very nice and useful lens. I don't know why the kit lenses now are 18-55 and 70-300. I am sure glade I got the 55-300 VR in my kit. I bought a really nice, barely used D7100 and the kit lenses from my D3100 are doing just fine.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

carl hervol wrote:

not that long we had no VR people to day are just to dependent on teck.

I remember reading that the non vr 70-300P is sharper than its vr brother. Don’t know if that’s true but I make the best of it. Low light would probably cause some issues without VR.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

foggypreacher wrote:

I have the 18-140mm and really like it. I use a 35mm f/1.8 for low light close up pics. Very rarely use the 70-300mm or 18-55mm kit lenses. Before the 18-140mm I used the 18-55mm for most everyday pics but found it limited. Good luck.

Yes, the 18-55mm is limited. I own also, a DX version, 35mm f1.8G. Love it. And I own the AF-P 70-300mm for DX cameras. It's not a fast lens though. But I find it useful at times.

Arubalou

wetreed wrote:

The Nikon 18-140 is very light and very high quality . It’s one of the best lens Nikon has ever made.

I second that

toxdoc42

Acat1234 wrote:

Bought Nikon d3500 kit pkg which included 18-55 mm vr lens which seems very good and a 70-300 non vr lens. I think the 18-55 will suffice for family gatherings but the 70-300 non vr is questionable for grandkids spirts, travelling, etc. I am not an avid wildlife photographer. At 73 yo I am trying to keep things simple and light. Am an amateur at best. Any suggestions appreciated.

See if the store will exchange/trade the 70-300 for the VR model or better, get the 55-200 VR. It is a better lens, better aperture, more compact and us older guys(I am 76) can still manage it. It is lighter and much better designed for use. I think you will love using it for photographing your grandkids, I can attest to that from my personal experience.

principalgrandpa

I have a Nikon 3500 with the Nikon 70-300 lens. I like to take a variety of photos including birds at our feeder, nature scenes, sports events, and lots of photos of our grandchildren. I have found that the tele zoom is great for many of the shots that I like to take, allowing me to get closeups without interfering with what is happening. Shooting in manual lets me play with the settings so that even in a gym I can get some good shots (adjusting for the artificial lighting). I recommend using a tripod or monopod when using the 70-300. I'd suggest that you try the lens in a variety of settings to see if it meets your needs.

Acat1234

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful and detailed replies. I will probably keep the kit 70-300 lens since sale value is pretty low. However, I am going to purchase an additional VR lens, just have to figure out how to hoodwink Wife.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Acat1234 wrote:

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful and detailed replies. I will probably keep the kit 70-300 lens since sale value is pretty low. However, I am going to purchase an additional VR lens, just have to figure out how to hoodwink Wife.

Explain to her how much better your images will be and if you get the FX version you can use it when you spend thousands of dollars on a full frame camera some day. We would all like to know where that discussion goes!! P.S. Christmas and birthday presents were designed for new lens purchases, just sayin!! When my adult children asked me what I wanted for Christmas I pulled out the B&H ad and acted surprised on Christmas morning.

Acat1234

Ronpier -thanks for the suggestion but I would like to see out of both eyes a while longer🤣. Maybe someday.........hopefully.

Elmerviking

ronpier wrote:

Explain to her how much better your images will be and if you get the FX version you can use it when you spend thousands of dollars on a full frame camera some day. We would all like to know where that discussion goes!! P.S. Christmas and birthday presents were designed for new lens purchases, just sayin!! When my adult children asked me what I wanted for Christmas I pulled out the B&H ad and acted surprised on Christmas morning.

Well this is a subject worth examining a bit more. Is a full frame lens sharper on a dx body?
Answer: not nessecarily!
If you go to dxo mark and search a specific lens you can see what sharpness it will give. For example:
Dxo mark for Nikkor 18-140 (dx) will give you 11 mp. That lens is around $400.
A Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 gives You 12 mp but cost $1.500.
(Note all figures is for a Nikon D7100)
Can You tell the difference between 11 or 12 mp? NO!
Is the 24-70 worth the price on a dx camera...?
Of course the build quality is better, but is it worth it?
Actually some kit lenses are better than some full frame lenses on a dx camera!
Well...it’s all up to you to decide what to buy.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Elmerviking wrote:

Well this is a subject worth examining a bit more.... (show quote)

In other words dumping an extra grand on an fx lens to be used on a DX camera may not be the best decision if only to benefit on low light capabilities. Is it worth it? It’s all up to you to decide....