In praise of Nikon’s 70-300mm VR lens

Good reviews of the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens keep coming. Wildlife photographer Moose Peterson has a huge kit of expensive telephoto lenses, but he still likes the 70-300mm VR, calling it Nikon’s best kept secret.

Likewise, Thom Hogan likes his 70-300mm VR and would choose it as one of only three FX lenses on a desert island. “You’re probably surprised with the 70-300mm VR. If you don’t need f/2.8, then you don’t need the 70-200mm. Indeed, you’ll like the 70-300mm at f/5.6 or f/8 better on an FX body. Close your mouth, that dropped jaw makes you look stupid. Really. The 70-300mm has very good edge to edge performance and doesn’t really start to fall down in any way until you start to approach 300mm. And even then, it’ll do in a pinch.”

Do the math

I like mine, too. It’s a heck of a lens for a reasonable amount of money – not cheap, but not crazy expensive. To realize how good this lens really is you have to take a look at what it would take to get a better lens.

At current prices (inflated due to a strong Yen) the 70-300mm VR is about $550. Weight is 1.5 pounds, length is 5 inches. The next longer lens, the 80-400mm VR, costs $1,500, weighs 3 pounds, and is 7 inches long. The next faster but shorter lens, the 70-200mm VR 2.8, is $1900, weighs 3 pounds, and is 8 inches long.

I’m not putting down those other lenses in any way. They can do things the 70-300mm can’t. It’s just that they do them at double or triple the weight and triple the cost.

Example. You know how I carry my 70-300mm when I’m walking around? If it isn’t on the camera I stick it in the pocket of my Columbia pants. No problem. I do that all the time when I’m switching between the 70-300mm and a shorter lens. I’m not going to carry those other two lenses around that way.

LATER: I bought a 70-200mm VR 2.8.

My review

I use the 70-300mm on a Nikon D40, which is DX a (1.5x crop sensor) body, but it’s an FX lens that works on the new full frame D3 and D700 bodies. Better, some say, than the 70-200mm VR, which will probably get a redesign to reduce vignetting on the full frame bodies. DX users won’t see vignetting with this lens because the image circle is overly-specced for a DX body. Whenever I look through the viewfinder with this lens I notice how very bright it is compared to my DX lenses.

This is a good portrait and wildlife lens, which was my original motivation for buying it. On a DX body it has the same field of view as a 450mm lens. I find that’s plenty for mammals and large birds, though not really enough for tiny songbirds. If you want to photograph songbirds you’ll either need to attract them with a feeder, stalk them, or get a second mortgage.

As a sports lens it’s limited by its maximum aperture of 3.5-5.6. That’s fast enough to freeze action outdoors on a sunny day. With a newer Nikon like the D90, D5000, D3, or D700 you can boost the ISO to extend its usefulness without sacrificing too much picture quality. If indoor sports is what you want to shoot you’ll eventually want a 2.8 or faster lens, which is where the 70-200mm 2.8 becomes the lens to have.

Autofocus speed is very good. The VR (Vibration Reduction) II system helps greatly in counteracting shaky hands, which means more pictures are keepers. The lens makes it easy to throw distant backgrounds out of focus on the long end. The quality of the out of focus backgrounds is good, if not up to the level of faster aperture lenses.

Sample photos

Hogan’s birding photos

Sports photos

Shooting across the river

Some pictures I’ve taken with the lens:

Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Greenbelt Park, Maryville, TN

Riders on US Hwy. 129 TN/NC border (The Dragon’s Run)

Tennessee Smokies Baseball Game, Chattanooga Lookouts at bat