03-17-2011, 11:39 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300348454' post='6893']
After reading more reviews on the Nikon 70-300vr, I think I should reconsider it. My overall impression is: in the 70-200 range the IQ is remarkably good; in the 200-300 range the image becomse somewhat softer than in the 70-200 range, but the softness may be less serious on a FX camera than on a DX camera, because of the 1.5 times amplification factor of DX.
Frank
[/quote]
And why not the Tamron 70-300 VC? It is sharper and more contrasty. Its 200-300mm range is less soft. If is fine for you to decide on ANY lens, of course, I just do not understand, for the moment, why you seem intent to avoid the Tamron, a lens which offers better IQ at the long end.
After reading more reviews on the Nikon 70-300vr, I think I should reconsider it. My overall impression is: in the 70-200 range the IQ is remarkably good; in the 200-300 range the image becomse somewhat softer than in the 70-200 range, but the softness may be less serious on a FX camera than on a DX camera, because of the 1.5 times amplification factor of DX.
Frank
[/quote]
And why not the Tamron 70-300 VC? It is sharper and more contrasty. Its 200-300mm range is less soft. If is fine for you to decide on ANY lens, of course, I just do not understand, for the moment, why you seem intent to avoid the Tamron, a lens which offers better IQ at the long end.