First hand experience with Nikon 70-300 VR?

Hello,

I'm in the market for a hiking-around Nikon lens and I am tired of waiting for Nikon to update their 80-400 VR and their 70-200 VR (the latter performs very well on DX bodies but exhibits sub-standard performance on the FX bodies). I'm hearing good things about the new(ish) 70-300 F4.5-5.6 VR and am wondering if anyone can give me their impressions of this lens. I tend to be on the anal side with respect to image quality, but will compromise a little for the convenience of carrying this smallish zoom when hiking (smallish relative to all my other huge lenses!). So...opinions on how much a compromise this lens is would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance...

Brad

PS: I've read a huge number of online reviews for this lens, so no need to point me at the reviews - really looking for first hand experiences.

Brad, I wish I had more time to write to you about this, but I am under a deadline and there is a mountain of work that has to be done.

I have the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens, and I enjoyed using it a lot prior to get the 80-400mm VR and the 200-400mm VR.

I have not sold the lens because I do like the thought of having a lens with some reach to carry around when I don't want to carry the larger ones.

I found the lens to take sharp images on both the D200 and the D70.

The one issue I have with it, like many Nikon lenses, is that the lens hood falls off some times when it gets bumped. The first day I used it I had to fish the lens hood out of a swamp, laying on a boardwalk and using a stick. I KNOW the people walking by thought I had lost my mind.

I bought mine in 2006, so I am not sure it is the new(ish) model, if you email me, I will send you a link to some images taken primarily with that lens.

I met up with a photographer walking through a local park who seemed to almost apologize for the small size of the 70-300mm, I posted the images to show him despite the size, you can get tack sharp images with it. I also told him never to apologize for his lens, that he just needed to expand his stalking skills if he was going to shoot avain with it, walk quieter and get to know the subject very well.

I also liked using it at the 70mm range for more of a wide angle view, picturing an animal in the landscape type of images.

Do email me, I'll send the link.

Brad, I can echo Lia's comments. I bought my 70-300 VR a year ago and find it is an ideal compromise for those occasions when you don't want to lug heavy equipment around like hiking. Accepting the wildlife limitations of a 300mm lens it delivers sharp handheld images. I've not had the lens hood fall off mine (yet) so I'll pay attention to that.
Regards, Cliff

Brad - in case you're still looking for comments on the lens, here you go. I'm now on my third sample of the lens. The first one had a non-functioning VR unit, the second one took images that looked like a coke bottle was used, and the third one is surprisingly good. I'm using it on a D300, so pixel density is high (I don't know which body you're using), but nevertheless, the lens is really good between 70 mm and 200 mm, maybe even 240 mm. At 300 mm, you can certainly get good images, but they're no longer as sharp and contrasty as at the shorter focal lengths. Also, it seems to me that the lens is optimized for close range shooting. Not right up to the near limit, but still, close subjects, like animals, people, and not landscapes at infinity.

So, would I buy it again? Yep. But beware of sample variation.

Basil

> and their 70-200 VR (the latter performs very well on DX bodies but exhibits sub-standard
> performance on the FX bodies).

Where did you hear that? Could you give some links? I am really interested in it as I am upgrading to D700 and I already own 70-200/2.8. If this is true what you are saying, then sholuld I quickly sell it while they sell? So that I can buy the upgrade for my FX?