MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: Allen on February 25, 2009, 16:47
-
Hi I was wondering if anyone has this lens and what they think of it for microstock.
I have the Tamron 70-300 and find it soft.
I would like a better lens than the Tamron for wildlife, but not sure how soft the Nikon gets at 300mm. If you have something better you would recommend that is under $800 than please fire it off.
The problem with most of the sites reviewing lenses is it is hard to find a 100% crop.
-
I already rented it just for fun when it came out and this one is soft also, from what I've experienced. You wont really have sharp lenses in the 70-300 category. Maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4, but I had a bad experience also with some Sigma lenses. Never tried this one though
Try this link to look at what you can get better. The 70-200 are better but expensive and Nikon don't have a f/4 like Canon http://www.photozone.de/
You can get a crop of samples images for all lenses there
-
I have one. Mine is very sharp at 70mm - 200mm and just a little less sharp from 200mm - 300mm. I've seen some posts saying 300mm is a bit soft but maybe I ended up with a better one. Color and contrast is good too.
Slrgear.com has a review.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13)
-
Like Paulie said above I've noticed that mine is a bit soft on the 200-300 end of the range as well, especially at 300mm. The rest of the range is great though.
-
Vonkara - do you purchase the red band sigmas or the gold band? the gold band Sigma lenses are pretty good. I really like mine. I wouldn't touch Tamron.
are you shooting with a tripod? and are you sure to set the VR to off when shooting with a tripod?
-
Best site I have found for Nikon Lens evals -->http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating
He likes it -->http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-300EDGVR
c h e e r s
fred
-
Thanks everyone, I'm still not sure. If I won't be satisfied with the zoom from 200-300mm then I will probably rarely zoom in that far, and if that's the case, I might as well get a higher quality zoom that goes up to 200mm. Anyways I will be sure to do more research.
-
Vonkara - do you purchase the red band sigmas or the gold band? the gold band Sigma lenses are pretty good. I really like mine. I wouldn't touch Tamron.
are you shooting with a tripod? and are you sure to set the VR to off when shooting with a tripod?
Yes I always shoot on a tripod. I have the Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro 1:1 ratio. I had problems with the body ring, but it was still OK to use. I never achieved real sharp results with this one, even if it's almost the best reviewed Sigma lens. I choosed it because of that but now I didn't use it anymore.
-
Another lens I was thinking about was the 18-200mm. It's a little more, and I have heard mixed reviews.
What do you guys think. Which one is sharper and which do you recommend for microstock. From what I have heard the 18-200 is good for a walk around lens, but too many problems for consistent results for microstock.
Thanks again!
-
The 18-200 is sharper. Probably the best choice in the price range you can achieve right now. But the 70-200 would be awesome ;)
-
I suppose you mean the Nikkor 18-200mm VR. It is a good walking around lens but you need to stop down to f/11 to get sharp images at 200mm (see review here --> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR )
I have had mine for 2 years and am pretty happy with it when I need the wide range (i.e. don't know what I will end up shooting.) It has bad creeping problem when shooting vertical and that is irritating. I'm saving up for a 28-70mm or 18-55mm f/2.8 to replace it.
In any case I don't think it would work well as a substitute for a 70-300mm.
fred