LOL :^D

soap said:
It isn't just that the "old one wasn't as good" - it's a matter that you make different products for different price points.

NON VR:

VR:

You can see that there are a lot of similarities, even after discounting the ED elements and VR group, but not the same, and the MTF charts bear this out. They're not even in the same ballpark when it comes to performance.

Cool.

jonnyapple said:
I'm sitting here chuckling at how there are so many of these posts where someone comes on and asks for advice, then long after they're gone we're still here discussing things, sometimes things that aren't even on topic (not that this stuff isn't, soap).

It reminds me of this political scientist who felt bad he could never help his kids with their math homework. One day his daughter asked for some help with a social studies project and after a few minutes of expounding on the subject of the project the daughter cut him off and said, "Dad, I only asked you for a little help."

I love this forum. It's so fun and educational at the same time.

Haha, yeah, since the original poster hasn't really posted back yet, we satisfy our need to communicate by talking about stuff other than that. :D

I'm sitting here chuckling at how there are so many of these posts where someone comes on and asks for advice, then long after they're gone we're still here discussing things, sometimes things that aren't even on topic (not that this stuff isn't, soap).

It reminds me of this political scientist who felt bad he could never help his kids with their math homework. One day his daughter asked for some help with a social studies project and after a few minutes of expounding on the subject of the project the daughter cut him off and said, "Dad, I only asked you for a little help."

I love this forum. It's so fun and educational at the same time.

adamz said:
soap, as I remember there were also a 70-300 ED version of this lens

Solid point. I can't find a diagram of it, but it also was 13 elements in 9 groups, like the G. Doesn't mean it is identical, though.

soap, as I remember there were also a 70-300 ED version of this lens

It isn't just that the "old one wasn't as good" - it's a matter that you make different products for different price points.

NON VR:

VR:

You can see that there are a lot of similarities, even after discounting the ED elements and VR group, but not the same, and the MTF charts bear this out. They're not even in the same ballpark when it comes to performance.

soap said:
and it's a totally different optical formula. :(

It is? I thought they just updated it with VR. I guess the old one wasn't as good, I didn't hear anything about it and the old 70-300 right now is dirt cheap.

NSXType-R said:
Just curious, did you buy the VR 70-300 or the non VR one? The non VR one is significantly cheaper, but obviously, there's no VR.

and it's a totally different optical formula. :(

lisa said:
So funny i was being impatient and looking up pricing for the 70-300 and Best Buy had a deal for camera, that lense and bag kit.....so i did it.....have the new lenses...it is bulky though...i am going to test it out at a few basketball games and see if i can handle it. I took a few distant pics from my home and it works pretty good...just worried about feeling alittle goofy at kids games with this big lense...but i will prob have the best pics out there.
Thanks to everyone again for the help and support....

Just curious, did you buy the VR 70-300 or the non VR one? The non VR one is significantly cheaper, but obviously, there's no VR.

johhny - unless secret service will take care of lisa and her big lens and send her to guantanamo (sorry couldn't resist)

lisa - hope You will have lot of luck with Your new lens, it's a really good piece of glass for it's price, with even better IQ in the 70-200mm range

lisa said:
just worried about feeling alittle goofy at kids games with this big lense...but i will prob have the best pics out there.
Thanks to everyone again for the help and support....

Next season everyone who's seen your pictures will probably have the same gear.

No reason to be self-conscious. Just think of all the great shots you'll have, and all the great shots the P&Sers will have missed.

Don't be so self-conscious Lisa :^) There are waaaay bigger and bulkier lenses than the 70-300. Enjoy your new gear.

So funny i was being impatient and looking up pricing for the 70-300 and Best Buy had a deal for camera, that lense and bag kit.....so i did it.....have the new lenses...it is bulky though...i am going to test it out at a few basketball games and see if i can handle it. I took a few distant pics from my home and it works pretty good...just worried about feeling alittle goofy at kids games with this big lense...but i will prob have the best pics out there.
Thanks to everyone again for the help and support....

Welcome to the forum Luke!

I was in the same boat pleased with the camera and kit lens - but such an array of lens i found my next choice very hard - then whilst talking to another guy shooting in my local shopping area he suggested an option i hadn't thought of or even knew existed - hire one
so i found these peeps and tried two lenses http://www.camerent.co.uk/lens_hire/nikon_lenses/lens_hire_nikon_lenses.html

i tried the 70 - 300 and for me found it good but bulky and heavy (please note i said for me)
but the 18 - 200 was just up my street lightish compactish with a good at most things type of lens and so far i havent even returned to the kit lens

it's hourses for courses but hiring allows you to get to feel if it's right for you and your type of photo's

blimey that was bit indepth for a first post lol
luke

alphanikonrex said:
Also KR wrote somewhere that we buy Nikon cameras not to use the cameras, but to use NIKKOR glass. Same goes for Canon.

He's also said the Tokina 11-16 is superior to the Nikon 12-24 and recommends it over the Nikon.
If you're going to quote KR you need to be sure the preponderance of his statements, not just one, are on your side.
He speaks with much hyperbole and figurative wordplay. He admits that he has a sense of humor expressed in his writing which makes any single line of his questionable. Quoting him out of context is dangerous - and the fact that said context may be two articles away makes it very difficult.

lisa - no problem, I'm glad for Your decision, just remember to get the 70-300 vr, as there's bunch of other 70-300 on the market (cheaper)

jonny - I fully support Your point of view

alpha - if You are unsure about sth, please don't make such a strong sentences, especially if You have no experience, sometimes it's better to trust the ones who are: older than You and have more photography experience. as for 3rd party lenses, well... I also would love to have only Nikkors in my bag, but as I'm paying for my hobby myself - sometimes I need to go on some compromises.
as for Your last post and the last part - well... if You will pay for Your own equipment by yourself You will be more than likely to experiment with 3rd parties. as for KR statement... there are ppl on this planet that are limited in certain aspects of perceiving the whole world, and it is only up to us either we buy it or we open our eyes to see the whole spectrum

Sorry, posted to the wrong thead.

Great decision!!! :^D

Adam sorry didnt realize the advertisements just pop up.....i think i will save up some money and go with the 70-300 vr
Thanks to all!!!!

I know, I know. It's just too many times the other brands have failed to be as reliable as Nikon. Not to say that Nikon doesn't mess up sometimes, but I like to think about it this way:

It's much easier to get a bad sample of a Sigma (for example) than of a Nikon.

Yeah, now that I reread it I think I'm targeting Sigma. What the duck ;^)

I've haven't played around enough with 3rd party lenses. Partly, I don't have the patience. I'd rather get a NIKKOR that I'm sure is good.

Also KR wrote somewhere that we buy Nikon cameras not to use the cameras, but to use NIKKOR glass. Same goes for Canon. So if you want to use Tamron glass, go get a Tamron camera and join the [TR] Forum fanboy :^P

But I'm not a tamron fanboy, either, alpha. I just think it's best not to be prejudiced going into a decision because you limit your options. You keep an open mind, do your homework, and make the decision based on more factors than a name.

I aspire to own some beautiful nikon lenses, but it's because of how they perform, not because they're nikkors.

Don't even start jonny ;^)

Yeah I see your point, but I see his point too.

And I'd rather have have a NIKKOR anyway.

I can see where you're coming from with your Tamron, and you've showed us all that is not to be underestimated. But still, the new NIKKOR is better :^P

alphanikonrex said:
From Ken Rockwell's Site:
Up through the 1970s Nikon only made very expensive professional lenses. Normal people had to buy discount brands lenses if they wanted something they could afford. Buying an off-brand lens was, and still is, the worst of all worlds: spending a lot on a camera, and then getting a dinky lens. The lens is the only part that affects the picture quality, so you are far better of with a crummy camera and good lenses.

Nikon and Canon are each primarily lens companies, not camera companies. It's sad to see people buy good cameras and put off-brand lenses on them. The main reason I bought my XTi is to use the great Canon 10-22mm lens!

Enough reason for me! ;^)

You guys know I love KR :^D

Blanket statements like these are what frustrates me about ken rockwell, alpha. How can he reasonably say that every name brand lens is better than every off-brand lens? The answer is he can't reasonably say it, but he says it anyway. The world needs a whole lot more pragmatism and a whole lot fewer dogmatic rants. Better than writing a hundred posts like these on his website would be to go out and actually try some of the off-brand lenses so that he can have an opinion based on fact. </dogmatic rant> edit: fixed grammar