Dirt cheap tele zoom, advice please

[Peter Forsell]

I'm looking for a dirt cheap, light and small tele zoom, that would still be usable. And I'd prefer AF.

Bjørn has rated the old 70-210 f4 pretty low. How about 70-300 D ED f4-5.6 ? This is not the bad G version nor the VR version. Any other suggestions?

Or maybe a manual focus lens would be better after all, something like 80-200 f4 ?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The last incarnations of 70-300 with VR are pretty good. Not stellar, but does the job decently.

I never understood why some "experts" enthuse about the old 70-210/f4 AF. I have used several copies of it and all were uniformly mediocre.

[Ron Scubadiver]

70-300 VR can be picked up really cheap used or refurbished.  I get great results from mine.

[Mongo]

Peter, it may help us to know the zoom range you need in order to try and give relevant suggestions or if a combination of 2 inexpensive zooms will cover your range

[Airy]

70-300 VR can be picked up really cheap used or refurbished.  I get great results from mine.

+1 ; probably your best choice for a cheap telezoom ; quality is good to very good.

[Frank Fremerey]

I did horses with the 70-300 VR on my D3 and got great results.

I had the 1.4/85 afs along side with it at the time and is is of course no match to the prime.

But it is decently fast and sharp and it is dirt cheap.

Another option is the older afs 2.8/80-200 ... used .... optically much better but no VR.

[Peter Forsell]

70-300 VR can be picked up really cheap used or refurbished.  I get great results from mine.

+1 ; probably your best choice for a cheap telezoom ; quality is good to very good.

The last incarnations of 70-300 with VR are pretty good. Not stellar, but does the job decently.
I never understood why some "experts" enthuse about the old 70-210/f4 AF. I have used several copies of it and all were uniformly mediocre.

Okay thank you, the opinion seems to be unanimous towards the 70-300VR.

[Peter Forsell]

Peter, it may help us to know the zoom range you need in order to try and give relevant suggestions or if a combination of 2 inexpensive zooms will cover your range

You are right, I should have been more specific. I am thinking very cheap but optically decent up to 200 mm or so.

I did horses with the 70-300 VR on my D3 and got great results.

I had the 1.4/85 afs along side with it at the time and is is of course no match to the prime.

But it is decently fast and sharp and it is dirt cheap.

Another option is the older afs 2.8/80-200 ... used .... optically much better but no VR.

Okay thanks Frank, the fourth vote for 70-300VR.

I have the other options you mention, but trying to find something smaller (pocketable), lighter and cheaper. I have 85/1.4D, 105/2.8, 200/2VRII, 70-200VR, 300VR, 400VR but those either won't reach 200mm or so, or aren't pocketable. I believe 80-200 AFS is heavier than 70-200VR.

Too bad there isn't an older but decent AF  80-200/4 or similar. There's the AIS version though, and AI 80-200/4.5 which received good rating from Bjørn, but manual focusing and my eyesight do not cooperate well.

I'll start looking for a 70-300VR locally, so I can test one before committing myself. Thanks everybody.

[Frank Fremerey]

The 70-300VR is neither lightweight nor small. But I can go to 300 that is true.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 70-300VR is neither lightweight nor small. But I can go to 300 that is true.

This is relative. I found the 70-300 eminently hand-holdable. The 300 mm focal length adds to the overall size of course, but not that much to the heft.

By the way, the 70-300 VR works with IR too. In case one wants to expand the photographic horizon

[Alaun]

From Nikon there is also the 28-300 VR. Slightly some more bucks. I use this lens on my D200 for IR, there it works just fine.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 28-300 extends in an almost obscene manner towards 300 mm ... This zoom is very good for IR, also for general usage on a 'normal' camera. The VR functions pretty well too. However, the long end isn't its strongest feature in terms of quality.

I sometimes think the old 28-200 screwdriver-type AF would be a better candidate, if one can stands the whining noise it makes during AF.

[Alaun]

... extends in an almost obscene manner towards 300 mm ...

Yes!

[Hugh_3170]

The older 80-200mm f/2.8 lens with screw driver AF is pretty good and can be had fairly cheaply.  It is still available new.

[Roland Vink]

Too bad there isn't an older but decent AF  80-200/4 or similar. There's the AIS version though, and AI 80-200/4.5 which received good rating from Bjørn, but manual focusing and my eyesight do not cooperate well.

The AIS 80-200/4 is a nicely made lens, and the close focusing to 1.2m is useful too, but it's not well corrected for CAs. The AI 80-200/4.5 may be a little better but you lose 2/3 stop and it only focuses to 1.8m.

If you only want up to 200mm, are happy with screw-drive AF and can live without VR, the AF-D 80-200/4.5-5.6 might be worth a look. It's extremely compact and lightweight, and dirt cheap. I've heard good things about the optics, but never tried it and don't know how well it performs on modern DSLRs.

Another option would be the AFS 55-200VR on a DX body...