Since you have a Nikon camera body, rather than buying a "newer affordable f/1.8 prime lens" you might ALSO consider an older, manual-everything Nikkor AI lens of the focal length(s) you want to use ...

In other words, "Why pay for autofocus/etc. if you are going to manually focus the camera?"

THAT WAY, you can ensure that what you want to be in focus will be what you choose.

BTW. While there are certainly many good non-Nikkor/non-Nikon lenses, my recommendation is that ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES on the lens brand!

BTW. Image with a simple rotation & crop using IRFANVIEW ...

Color balance can be tricky ...

Whether-or-not the attached are better-or-acceptable, they were achieved with the SINGLE PRESET using IRFANVIEW (a freeware program) ...

Of course, they can be tweaked further as one sees fit.

What type of lenses do you currently use? Wide angle, telephoto, zoom?

Are you generally happy with the results you get with those lenses?

Do you mind manually focusing the lens OR do you want lenses which can autofocus?

As noted, you can use your current lens(es) on some camera bodies ...

As an aside, I will say that if your current choice is limited to Canon & Nikon, then I think that you (and, others are on the decision cusp between ONLY those two brands) would be better off in the long run if you chose Nikon BECAUSE (and, this may not seem like a good enough reason to some) almost every Nikon lens made for their SLRs (their 19mm lens which does not have the retrofocus elements may be the only exception because the elements which protrude into the camera body will be in conflict for the space which the electronic contacts (and, mirror!) occupy) in the past 50 years can be used in MANUAL MODE on their DSLRs.

As many already know, Canon has chosen to modify their lens mount with the consequence being that their original SLR (FL/FD, for example) lenses are not readily usable on their DSLR camera bodies due to the longer flange-to-focal-plane distance on their DSLR camera bodies..

For the same reason that I might opt for a Nikon digital camera body over a Canon digital camera body, if I had Pentax lenses then I would probably be inclined toward getting a Pentax digital camera body.

So, you need to ask yourself if you are switching because you want auto-this & auto-that functions or because of some of the possibilities which the digital images you produce might have + the conveniences (e.g., 100s of shots vs. 36 shots per roll).

FWIW. MY current preference is for mirrorless camera bodies. I have one, quite primitive-and-humongous 4/3 SLR which preceded the m4/3 mirrorless bodies. The SLR viewing is great up to a point. I find that I'm in the camp that appreciates what a reasonably good EVF (electronic view finder) can do ... and so, what the person taking the picture can theoretically do when composing the picture.

Not all EVF finders are created equal. The older ones are probably best thought of as being more for framing the scene when compared with more recent iterations.

While I can use my vintage (mostly Nikkor) SLR lenses on the 4/3 camera body with a thin adapter, I can use almost ANY lens which has its own focusing barrel on an m4/3 camera via an adapter (so the Contax/Nikon rangefinder lenses are among the exceptions).

While my heart may want a camera with a "full frame" sensor, my brain-and-wallet tell me that a camera body with a "crop frame" is more than adequate for what I am doing.

THAT MAY BE A LONG WAY OF SAYING that if you decide what lenses you have used in the past are what you want to use (OR their digital equivalents if you feel a need-or-desire for autofocus/etc.) OR if there are other lenses you think you want to use than the ones you own then you will probably go a long way toward making a decision which you won't regret ...

Geez ...

While I understand your frustration at ONE level, I don't at another ...

If you only had a blurred image "once" due to circumstances which you had control over whose results would probably have been replicated when you were using a film camea, then I'm not sure what your complaint actually is ...

While Vibration Reduction OR Image Stabilization OR whatever the manufacturer wants to call it is generally a good thing, while it may seem difficult to believe, I am sure that there are some people who would prefer a lens which doesn't have VR ...

Vibration Reduction isn't a miracle function which will ensure a perfect image ...

For that matter, Auto-Focus isn't necessarily a miracle function, either ...

AND, when there are more-moving-parts there are more things which can eventually fail ...

I am not alone in possessing lenses which are more than 60 years old which are still fully functional ... my guess is that the VR/IS in most of the current Nikon/Canon/etc. lenses will need servicing before 60 years have elapsed OR the lens may (in the worst case scenario) become a paperweight ...

Regardless, your isolated-for-you experience which you cite suggests that if you were to have given the matter EVEN MORE serious consideration than what you currently perceive to be a caveat emptor situation then you might have opted for the lens without VR because the $50 premium might have ultimately been deemed to have been unnecessary (for you) ...

Maybe, you would have opted for a 300mm (or, some other single focal length) PRIME lens instead of the 70mm-300mm ZOOM lens!!!

Maybe, if you had thought about it, you would have excluded the 18mm-55mm Zoom lens from your purchase, too!

Regardless, I have to believe that it's inevitable that at some (¿distant?) point in time in the future that we/you will see THAT series of Nikon digital camera bodies with VR incorporated in the body BECAUSE (IMO) the market will demand it because in-body image stabilization is already available in competing camera lines ...

And, at that point in time you will probably be ready for a new camera body & then you can stop fretting about the lack of VR in your 70mm-300mm lens!

FWIW ...

Some people think that to offer a contrary observation to their POV is to merely offer an opinion ...

That is because they apparently cannot-or-have-not-been-able-to process the scope of the situation ...

As FULL DISCLOSURE, I will state that I will typically put a filter on the front of my lenses ... the exception is when I don't have one to attach!

Now, one reason is that I used to keep a filter on my lenses is because most of what I shot was what many refer to as photojournalism ... so, the inconvenience of a lens cap exceeded its utility ... regardless, IMO, a shallow hood will not be much protection to the front element of a wide angle lens.

Of course, I presume that I am not the only individual who used to use a rangefinder camera who found it to be mildly annoying to find out that the lens cap was STILL ON THE LENS after presumably taking a picture.

Now, I will add that I have seen many other individual lenses (beginning with a used Sumarit) which I briefly had which probably never had a lens filter attached to it ... much to MY delight, the images of that un-coated lens (and, an un-coated Summar) were not impeded by the light "cleaning" scratches which they had acquired in the prior decades ...

I have also seen numerous lenses which OTHER people had which never had a filter on it whose coating was very badly degraded from cleaning ...

Those lenses surely were able to take reasonably good pics ...

BUT, the argument that the added layer of glass in front of the lens impedes IMAGE QUALITY is, IMO, specious because I'll bet dollars-to-donuts that the vast majority of the individuals who say they don't use a protective filter because the additional layer of glass is potentially degrading are blissfully using ZOOM lenses (a HUGE compromise even if there are better formulations with floating groups, IMO) which certainly have additional layers of "glass" instead of using a PRIME lens ...

Regardless of whether-or-not there is an advantage to having a sacrificial lens filter attached to a lens, the added (hopefully "clean") air-glass-air (with-or-without-dirt-or-light-scratches) surface in front of the lens will necessarily have LESS effect on the bending of the light than the additional "surfaces" which a Zoom lens will have within the lens barrel ...

If it matters, is it that much more difficult to unscrew a lens filter than to remove a lens cap?

Of course, when I do use a Zoom lens, I know it is a huge compromise over using a quality Prime lens.

Do those who use Zoom lenses but decry the use of a lens filter know that they are compromising their Image Quality?

So, while it may be a cosmetic issue to have a lens with an unmarred front element, that's what I would prefer ...

And so, THAT's my "opinion."

BTW. The filter tests performed by Roger Cicala (Olaf and Lensrentals) was very interesting ... he did not say whether they put a filter on their lenses, or if he recommends that the renter use one, or what the fee is if a lens is returned with a scratched front element.

I think his test would also have been EVEN MORE enlightening if he had included a few generic filters to show how good-or-bad they were when compared with the "major UV filters on the market."

It would also (?) have been interesting (at least to me) if Cicala had analyzed the Tiffen filters to see why they performed so poorly.

It is hard to believe that for the type of test (i.e., "pinhole") which was being performed that a Step-Down ring couldn't have been used so that the Leica filter could be included in the data related to lens flare.

FWIW. I am another who person uses a variety of vintage lenses (Nikon, Leica thread mount, Exakta, etc.) on an m4/3 body by attaching the lens with a "dumb" (hollow tube) adapter.

A Sony camera body is apparently another popular option ...

And, others have cited Fuji's camera bodies as being viable, too.

Determining the sensor size which you want to have-and-use will probably help you with YOUR choice by elimination of some of the options.

The performance of any vintage lens will be equal to what it was capable of in the past ...

I use (probably in this order) AI Nikkor, Olympus Zuiko, Leitz thread mount, Canon Serenar, Zeiss (aus Jena), plus some others (e.g., Russian lenses Sonnar & Elmar copies + some misc. Japanese lenses) on my m4/3 camera bodies with simple (DUMB, hollow tube) adapters.

Rangefinder lenses (e.g., Leica thread-or-bayonet mount, Canon Serenar, etc.) may be better due to the focus shift which apparently occurs which a rangefinder's coupling cam does not compensate for.

BTW. If you are considering a NON-Full-Frame camera body, then you may also want to consider an m4/3 (Micro Four-Thirds) camera body made by Panasonic or Olympus.

FWIW. A few months ago, I finally wanted to see whether-or-not the plebeian 14-42 "kit" lens would still auto-focus when CLOSE UP lenses were attached (I had great success with a test I did several decades ago using a close up lens on a fixed lens TLR) ...

Here are a couple of the pics (hand held, cropped by ~50% & re-sampled to 800x600) from the fore mentioned test ...

The "purple aster" (someone else may 'correctly' identify them with another name!) blossoms are about the size of a thumb nail, there was a slight breeze, and I was certainly moving as I tried to frame the image ... I reckon that the lens would have performed a little bit better if I had mounted the camera on a tripod.

(Download)


(Download)

FWIW. I think your "ghost cloud" pic from the Badlands is great!

WALL DRUG is nothing like it was 50+ years ago ...

My recollection is that it, alone, was Wall, SD ...

Basically, it was the Drug Store with a bustling cafeteria + the Buffalo (which is now stuffed) & some misc. tourist diversions surrounded by a gravel parking lot ... the "attractions" are now in the "Back Yard" section.

I sure don't recall the town, feed mill, and "mini-mall"/emporium which exists there now ...

Someone else may have a different memory of Wall Drug from the early 60s.

Of course, it's easy to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY ...

I cannot tell how close you actually want to get to your subject OR the subsequent, relative magnification ...

I think that for many people (or, perhaps just myself!?!) the ability to focus a little closer than the normal range is all that is wanted ...

FWIW. One thing I determined when I was doing some testing several decades ago using CLOSE UP lenses on a fixed lens TLR is that you can get remarkably good results (I wanted to see if the slightly larger film format was worth the effort before I ponied up for something like a Mamiya TLR-or-SLR or a Hasselblad (!)) ...

Finally, a few months ago, armed with THAT knowledge that you can achieve excellent results (the underlying lens is the limitation) and trying to figure out what to do with the rather plebeian 14-42 "kit" lens designed for a Panasonic m4/3 camera I finally decided to pony up the meager amount (<$15 via an eBay vendor) for a set of CLOSE UP lenses ...

The main thing which I wanted to test was whether or not the auto-focus would still function ...

Allowing for the limited depth of field which a close up pic will generally have, it does based on the quickie test pics I made ..

Here are a couple of hand held, cropped by ~50% & re-sampled to 800x600, test pics of a "purple aster" taken with the +10 Diopter lens on the 14mm-42mm lens set at 42mm ... I think that the particular lens can actually perform a little better, but I haven't tried since I simply wanted to see if the lens could auto-focus, or not, with a close up lens attached ...

Obviously, a lens with some aperture control (I have never bothered to figure out if the particular lens has any user control beyond zooming) can have a greater depth of field ...

Obviously, a tripod would probably help, too!

(Download)


(Download)

Not to be flip ...

I'm not going to read through all the pages of suggestions ... so, this may have already been suggested ...

FWIW. I recommend that you suggest to him that he can start to mow lawns, shovel snow, and do other chores in the neighborhood until he has the money to buy what he thinks he wants ...

OR, let his parents buy the camera for him!

It has been well over decade since I was in the Tingley Coliseum ...

And, if things haven't changed then I think that you are being generous when you say that the lighting was "so-so" ...

If things haven't changed, then I would say that the dim-and-relatively-uneven lighting do not lend themselves to most non-flash (obviously, a Flash would NOT be beneficial in that space) photographic situations ...

I would expect you to require ISO 1600-or-more ...

Manual pre-focusing will probably yield better results than using the camera's auto-focus ...

But, try BOTH.

BTW. I think that you'll probably get more interesting pics if you take the time to walk through the paddock/stable area ... my 'recollection' is that access for participants is through the northern most gate on San Pedro ... so, I guess THAT area would be north of the "Carnival" Fairway.

Post your rodeo & State Fair pics ...

Good luck!

HMmmm ...

Too bad your reading comprehension isn 't better ...

To quote myself:

Just what can your nephew NOT do with his current camera & lenses that he thinks that he wants to do which a different camera & lenses will allow him to do?

AFTER he figures that out, then he can add the appropriate accessory/-ies ...

If you weren't apparently so hellbent on EITHER using my post as a springboard for your blathering echo OR if you weren't simply trolling then you would realize that my post was asking the question "What kinds of photographs does the nephew like to shoot? The answer to that question would then help with model suggestions for a body upgrade."

In other words, due to your apparently poor reading comprehension, you apparently did-or-do not realize that you simply re-stated what I had written!

While there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with acquiring different-and/or-better equipment, the odds are that the OP's nephew will benefit by waiting a year-or-two AFTER he thinks he wants a new camera body before actually dipping into his own savings OR having someone else pony up for whatever he may eventually acquire ...

Again, if the OP's nephew understands the limitations (if there are any) of his current camera equipment for the TYPE of pictures he wants to capture-or-create and NOT what you-or-I-or-anyone-else may want a camera body or lens(es) to be capable of doing-or-not-doing, then he will know if there are actually any components (body, lens, etc.) which will allow him to produce the images which he wants more economically than by purchasing a new camera body and/or lenses.

BTW. I am clueless as to how my suggesting that the OP's nephew and/or his instructor not acquire new equipment is being "selfish" OTHER THAN for a potential retailer for whom the potential sale would be delayed ...

UNLESS temporary deprivation of new equipment for the OP's nephew is somehow a selfish act akin to MY EATING THE-LAST-PIECE-OF-PIZZA WHEN HE HADN'T HAD ANY, YET!?!

IF the OP's nephew waits, THEN he may be able to better appreciate the benefits of acquiring a Nikon (e.g., the OP might offer to lend him a lens for a shoot-or-two!) ...