70-300mm VR is the only one I would see as a possibility. It could be the AF Select (change to spot like HF said) and use the center spot. I would try the latter first before another lens. AF deals more with the camera and not the lens unless you do go for a f/4 or f/2.8. When my 70-300vr starts to hunt alot I changed everything to single servo, center focus point and spot metering. If I have the 3d 51-pt on it does go bonkers in low light.

HF: Have you actually shot all those?

Consider the new 18-300 DX or the 28-300 FX from nikkor.

For the range you mentioned the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens would probably be suitable.

For low light, maybe the newer lenses will focus better .. or get a newer camera which has a better autofocus system? the D3200, D5200 seems nice.

Also try using the spot focus with the camera set at the center focus point, which is usually the most accurate focus sensor.

PS its nice too see my old pictures from early on in the thread! .. See the dragonfly in flight photo? with challenging subjects .. Manual is the way to go.. Maybe suggest that she try manual focus ..

PPS what about the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vc. seems like a good option.

What you are asking for really doesn't exist, short of using a higher end camera body (D600/D800/D4). The only consumer zooms that don't weigh a ton are the 55-300 VR, and 70-300mm VR, both of which are variable aperture and wont solve the current problems your wife is dealing with.

Anything cheaper? :)

Sounds like the new 70-200 f4 would be perfect.

Warming over an old thread with a new question:

We just got back from Antarctica. My wife shoots a D90, and the only thing she wanted to shoot was the 55-300mm kit lens. Ok, fine. She uses autofocus and always will. She was annoyed that as soon as the light wasn't perfect, or as soon as the background grew complex, the 55-300mm started to hunt.

I was about as shocked as the dude in "Casablanca" was to find out the gambling was going on at Rick's. I offered her any/all of my primes, but she only wants to use a zoom lens. The 200-400mm I brought along was too heavy for her to handhold for any length of time. So she needs a new piece of glass and I need a suggestion as to what to get her (yes I'll be selling the 55-300 to help finance it).

REQUIREMENTS
--Something that zooms she can handhold for a 1-2 hour stretch
--Something that won't hunt in full-AF mode around f/5.6 to f/8 in light that isn't horrible but isn't perfect.

DON'T CARE ABOUT:
--Great IQ. She's going to be posting 2MB JPEG files on the Internet.
--VR

Yes I'd like nice IQ, yes I'd like VR, but I don't want to pay for it. There are a wide array of choices (with the new 70-200 f/4 at the very edge of the price range) but all I really want is "zoom, doesn't hunt". Maybe if IQ is nbd, a third-party solution is the way to go?

Opinions?

I just got a used 70-300 VR for two show-stopping reasons:

1. within budget;
2. lightweight enough to be carried in my camera bag with the rest of my lens, all day and on every ocasion.

I had an AF-S 80-200 f2.8 on loan for some time, and although I agree it is a superior lens, the weight and sheer size of it made me only carry it at those times when I knew I would be using it. The tripod foot and a good monopod are almost as good as VR, but not quite, and you loose portability and handling speed. As for optical qualities, the 80-200 is outstanding, but the 70-300 is quite adequate for my amateurish use. This lens is a breeze to use handheld, very good AF response, extremely sharp at f8 and quite satisfatory wide open, even at 300mm, another of it's advantages over the f2.8 zooms (one can never have enough reach, not even on DX).

If I was shooting FX, I might think the 70-200 VR is a worthwhile investment,because of final IQ and particularly considering that the focal length on FX is more flexible. As a comparison, the 70-300 on DX has the FOV of a 105-450, suitable only for a more specialized use.

I keep wondering when Nikon is going to redo the 80-400 as their current one is NOT what I would buy. Every time I try that lens I go back to the 70-300VR and wonder why Nikon doesn't seem to be releasing a lens I think they have ready for production?

When it comes to that price range, unfortunately, Nikon does not provide many choices (as of date of writing this post).
80-400 is probably the only one. It's not the greatest performer out there, but it is still a very good one. An upgrade of the model is expected since a long time now, but I have this feeling that an upgrade would be made to the price as well, which is inevidently higher than the current one.

As for third party lenses, such as the Sigma 50-500 OS, it's okay, but definitely cannot match up to a Nikkor lens. Unless you badly want the extra 100mm, I would definitely recommend the 80-400. And like I said, you don't have any other choices at the moment.

If you increase your budget, well, then that's a different talk altogether.

thank you TTJ

I should have been more clear. Usability of it under 16ft is far from ideal. Manually I can get 5ft. AF it takes about 3-5 times of re-composing to get anything under 16ft. The further away you are the faster it focuses but it is not a quick focus lens.

casperwb said:
have you used it at a concert, or indoor at a church where you could not get close to the "action"?
...compared to the 70-200vr, money/cost aside, what about weight and handling, physically.

Concerts-no, (wouldn't even bother) churches - yes (pre-focus must, wouldn't take it), Basketball games - yes (never again), outdoor sports-yes, everything else pretty much yes. I have had it for about 4 years and had it CLA'd and is in perfect condition. It is the newest crinkle finish one. Really bright light it does well with AF. The focus is slow, no where near the 70-200 or even the 70-300 in low light. It is an OLD AF-D focus design. If you have used the old 80-200mm lens from the mid 90's that is how it focuses. Pre-focus is a must and fast action is almost out of the question.

It is light, small, and razor sharp. I really can't get over how sharp the thing is - better than my 105vr and 60mm macros. That is why I keep it. Why I don't use it or choose to break my back with the 70-200? AF sloooooow and like I said, anything under 16 ft it just hunts and hunts and hunts. Forget tracking anything with it. 180mm (270mmDX) is a long lens and I found not able to zoom is difficult. Without VR, low light shots get jiggly very quick. On dx I have to keep it above 1/200 propped on something or 1/300 Handheld.

Not sure what else to add - fire questions away if anyone wants to know more.

TaoTeJared said:
Great lens but NOT good for indoors! Minimum focusing is 16ft (5m) and slow focusing. I love mine, just can't give it up but it has sat on the shelf for about a year without use always reaching for the 70-200. It is by far one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned.

Tao, are you sure about that closest foccusing distance of 16FT (5m) ?
Nikon says ( http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af_180mmf_28d_if/index.htm) that its closest foccusing distance is 1.5 m / 5 ft .. ?

TaoTeJared

have you used it at a concert, or indoor at a church where you could not get close to the "action"?

compared to the 70-200vr, money/cost aside, what about weight and handling, physically.

not worried about IQ compared.

thanks

casperwb said:
I have been lusting after a Nikon 180mm f2.8 af-d

Great lens but NOT good for indoors! Minimum focusing is 16ft (5m) and slow focusing. I love mine, just can't give it up but it has sat on the shelf for about a year without use always reaching for the 70-200. It is by far one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned.

I have been lusting after a Nikon 180mm f2.8 af-d

not as heavy as that 70-200 f2.8 vr monster

for indoor use: like toast with butter and jam and a cup of tea.

well, maybe better. saving, saving, saving.

to add: 180 + 90 = 270mm f2.8 on a D7000

kyoshinikon said:

I would have to disagree ......
I do motocrosss photography ....

but swame_sp did not say he was doing motocross, he said he want to photograph musical performance and get-together with buddies and community meetups.....

Now if the musicans and his buddies, do motocross, then yes, may be wide apature might be better.

but the solutionis to save up for the 70-200 VR f2.8

swame_sp said:
I'm looking for a telephoto that could handle low-light situations. Using flash is an option but not always.

I'm skeptical on 70-300 VR lens for what I have said above. I'm not sure if VR could handle the subjects moving around in low-light. I could be wrong, correct me.

I will agree that VR isn't a substitute for a faster lens. I just didn't know how telephoto you needed. In the comparison between the 85 f3.5 with VR and any F2.8 lens without VR there isn't much difference...so if you didn't like the results light wise with it then the F2.8 wouldn't matter much. Now the difference between F5.6 and F2.8 would be noticeable and worth the upgrade.

That makes perfect sense kyoshinikon and CaryTheLabelGuy. All the reviews that I read point me towards 80-200 f2.8, may be I should start saving now for the used ones.

I asked for 135mm f2.8 because it is a cheaper lens and I would lose zooming ability and have to move up and down to the stage for a better shot :)

tcole1983 said:
I guess for me I have no idea what you are trying to do. Do you really need a telephoto lens? How close do you think you can get? ..... or 50 F1.4, but to me it seems like you really aren't sure what you need/want. Or we have no idea what you want :)

I left out the obvious 70-200 F2.8 VRI or VRII, but once again $$$. The problem with any of the cheaper, older lenses is no VR.

I'm looking for a telephoto that could handle low-light situations. Using flash is an option but not always.

I'm skeptical on 70-300 VR lens for what I have said above. I'm not sure if VR could handle the subjects moving around in low-light. I could be wrong, correct me.

kyoshinikon said:
I would have to disagree on the vr... You will get more shake with VR2 at F5.6 than you will get at a 2.8 with no VR especially because the Vr doesn't compensate for a moving subject. You (or your camera) will have to use a lower shutter speed and while the Vr fixes any movement you may have it doesn't compensate for the gain in motion blur you will have.

I do motocrosss photography a while back I purchased an 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 with vr. I was so fed up with the lack of control I had over motion blur that I bought 2 80-200mm f2.8's... Not a problem in the Day, but at night maintaining a decent ISO (1250ish on my D90) and a fast enough SS (1/250th) cannot be done at a 5.6 with many moving subjects...

Yeah, I'm with kyoshinikon. VR wont help with moving subjects - only fast shutter speeds will. Fast aperture over VR anyday. This is why I personally own a 80-200mm f/2.8 (new 2 ring version). The only reason I need the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is because of the extra 10mm on the wide end, not because I think VR is that iimportant, although it does come in handy - not for freezing your subject, though. Plus, VR is another mechanism that can get broken 20 years from now, while a lens without VR (like the 80-200 aka 'the Tank') will last 100 years if it's taken care of.

There is a reason you pay such a big premium for fast aperture lenses.

sevencrossing said:
I personally would go for lens with VR over a wide aperture

have you considered one of the best "do everything" DX lenses Nikon make. The 18 -200 VR11

Out of interest, what ISO do you use in poor light

I would have to disagree on the vr... You will get more shake with VR2 at F5.6 than you will get at a 2.8 with no VR especially because the Vr doesn't compensate for a moving subject. You (or your camera) will have to use a lower shutter speed and while the Vr fixes any movement you may have it doesn't compensate for the gain in motion blur you will have.

I do motocrosss photography a while back I purchased an 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 with vr. I was so fed up with the lack of control I had over motion blur that I bought 2 80-200mm f2.8's... Not a problem in the Day, but at night maintaining a decent ISO (1250ish on my D90) and a fast enough SS (1/250th) cannot be done at a 5.6 with many moving subjects...

swame_sp said:
I'm currently thinking of faster lens (f2.8) for indoor events, not using bright lights, musical performance and get-together with buddies and community meetups.....

I personally would go for lens with VR over a wide aperture

have you considered one of the best "do everything" DX lenses Nikon make. The 18 -200 VR11

Out of interest, what ISO do you use in poor light

I guess for me I have no idea what you are trying to do. Do you really need a telephoto lens? How close do you think you can get? I mean you have the 85 F3.5 which should work pretty well for protrait type pics. An F2.8 lens will only add one stop for you and if it doesn't have VR then you are losing stops. I am not sure you would really gain anything from the 135 F2.8. Like I said with no VR which is usually good for at least 3 stops you will actually get 2 stops better performance than the F2.8 which is only a stop faster than the F3.5. My only suggestion is maybe the 85 F1.4, or 50 F1.4, but to me it seems like you really aren't sure what you need/want. Or we have no idea what you want :) The only lens that is more telephoto that I would suggest is either the 105 F2.8 macro or one of the third party options such at the Sigma 150 F2.8 with OS....they are both around $800-900 though. I think you are wanting something that you aren't going to get for the price. The only options I see are expensive.

I left out the obvious 70-200 F2.8 VRI or VRII, but once again $$$. The problem with any of the cheaper, older lenses is no VR.

I'm currently thinking of faster lens (f2.8) for indoor events, not using bright lights, musical performance and get-together with buddies and community meetups. I don't think of any other situations to use this lens.

Since my usage is going to be less compared to my other lens 35mm f1.8, I'm thinking of push pull version of the lens ($500).