monty11 said:
How does the 70-300 compare to the current 55-200 in terms of IQ? What I'm after is whether it is worth the upgrade (apart from the extra 100mm).

As a current owner of both I find the IQ of the two lenses to be quite similar on DX. The 55-200 (VR) objectively vignettes more on DX than the 70-300, BUT the vignetting is not very objectionable, or even noticeable. I say this because the 55-200 does not have a hard transition from corner to center, but rather a very gentle one - one which is hard to see if you are not looking for it.

I very much like the fact that the 55-200 has a 52mm filter thread, and even though I feel the 70-300 VR is sharper at focal lengths > 150 I still rarely use it. In a nutshell, the IQ is very similar throughout most the focal range, and the main advantage of the 70-300, IMHO, is everything BUT basic IQ.

The 70-300 is also a better handling, more rugged, and heavier lens. I tend to use it almost exclusively on my FF and film bodies, as I don't find myself ever missing MF override on the 55-200. (Filter ring not rotating is nice, though not enough IMHO to justify carrying twice as many filters and more bulk.)

monty11 said:
How does the 70-300 compare to the current 55-200 in terms of IQ? What I'm after is whether it is worth the upgrade (apart from the extra 100mm).

I do not own the 55-200mm lens so I really can't comment accurately on that. Many say including Thom Hogan that the 70-300mm is not a 300mm lens because of the performance drop at 300mm, but I have always been pleased with the results at 300mm keeping in mind what I paid for it. Personally my belief is that the 100mm is worth the difference in price, but that is just me.

I'm curious about this, too. There's another thread that brings this up (in comparison to the 70-300) and has some diagrams that I can't make head or tail of.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2425

Thoughts?

How does the 70-300 compare to the current 55-200 in terms of IQ? What I'm after is whether it is worth the upgrade (apart from the extra 100mm).

Humm interesting must be for lens corrections only. I just thought a lens calibration would solve the problem although updating the software in a lens might be part of the calibration. I hear it is more common with third party lenses than with Nikon or Canon..

I did not update the software, Nikon updated it when I sent it in for service. I guess everything has software in it now.

pabnj just curious, how do you update the software in a lens? ^^ I'd like to vote again and say the 70-300mm VR is fantastic! It was great again on my national park holiday in the States this month.

monty11 said:
aslightdelay, close the aperture on a lens and press the DOF-preview button and you will see how dark it gets (Nikon D90 and higher).

As soon as I own one, I will do just that! ;)

speshalyst said:
Wondering what Nikon had to say about this!

I just received my lens back this past Saturday, they updated the software in the lens, cleaned it, and recalibrate it. It seems to be working much better than it did before. Prior I hesitated to use it because it seemed I'd shoot more lousy shots (out of focus, or motion blur) than good ones. Now most of the pictures are in focus, free of the motion blur that I experienced in the past. Still need more time with it, but it seems far more reliable. The VR seems a bit better too which probably was the reason for the software update.

pabnj said:
I have actually started to notice the same thing for distant subjects, they seemed out of focus for some reason, and I know I have taken really nice shots far away. I sent it in last week to Nikon USA for a look, it also appears that my VR hunts a bit too. Curious as to what their finding are.

Wondering what Nikon had to say about this!

aslightdelay, close the aperture on a lens and press the DOF-preview button and you will see how dark it gets (Nikon D90 and higher).

Thanks!

aslightdelay said:
I think I follow you. Bear with me a second. If I'm understanding right, it goes like this: If I have, say, a 1.8 lens set to 2.8, it's going to be wide open (1.8) while I autofocus, but will step down to 2.8 when the time comes to actually shoot?

That is correct

I think I follow you. Bear with me a second. If I'm understanding right, it goes like this: If I have, say, a 1.8 lens set to 2.8, it's going to be wide open (1.8) while I autofocus, but will step down to 2.8 when the time comes to actually shoot?

aslightdelay said:
So on a wider aperture it wouldn't hunt so badly? But then doesn't that give you DOF issues?

No because autofocus happens before the lens stops down. So,for example, if there were a 70-300mm constant f2.8 aperture lens then it would let in a lot more light because the lens is at f2.8 when focusing. When you take the picture the lens will close up to f5.6 or whatever. With the 70-300mm f4.5-f5.6 lens the max aperture at 300 is f5.6 even before you take the picture. An f2.8 lens at 300mm will have a brighter viewfinder then the 70-300. I hope that makes sense.

i wonder if they'll update it since they are updating the 55-200 to the 300. . .

So on a wider aperture it wouldn't hunt so badly? But then doesn't that give you DOF issues?

That's because f5.6 is relatively dim for the AF especially at 300mm.

Yes, I used it for 6 months and remembered there were a few situations the 70-300 hunted and the hunt was a little slow, like when there are branches in front of other branches or I was a little too far from the subject and the AF would look for the background. But the nice part was I could predict when it would have trouble and the 70-300 would reliably take the shot I was waiting for otherwise. And a few times, no exaggeration, a bird sweeping out of the sky and I'd swing my lens out and pray for the best, it would surprise me by getting the shot. I used it a lot for 6 months before I realized I enjoyed using 300mm enough to justify getting the next model up version.

I've tried these out on D90's in-store, and I've noticed that at the long end the AF tends to hunt. A lot. I was able to speed things up a bit by helping it along with some manual focus, but if I decide to get one of these as a second lens, I'd kinda like it to work properly. I should note that I was focusing on stuff in the store, so it's not like I was trying to pick out the wings on a mosquito at half a mile away. Also, it happened regardless of what I was trying to focus on. I can understand it hunting on a busy background, but I was also trying for more isolated objects and noticing the same issue.
Has anyone else had this problem?

yeah they're running super cheap now as refurbs. . .I might even get one as a travel zoom instead of lugging the good ol' 70-200 around. . .

....But just to keep things in perspective, here is a snap of a bike doing over 100MPH that I took with it wide open at 300mm:

If you can blow it up you'll see that it's not too shabby for such a cheap lens?

Huge thanks to all of you for the information you have provided me and your willingness to share with others. I can't even start to think how many shots I would of lost without this information but more so, how many shots I will now gain by your generous comments.

great lens from 70-200, above 200 it's IQ fails fast

NikoDoby said:
Why does it matter what we think? You already bought it. Tell US what the pros and cons are according to YOU.

how bout because it's fun and nice to hear what other people say about things you both own. Maybe they've noticed something you haven't, or found a great way to reduce x, or improve y.

Bland was asking a perfectly legitimate question.