Differences between 18-300 mm VR lense and a non standar lense: The VR technology is really a plus to choose the VR lenses technology?
465671
VR is handy in low light when your subject is relatively static because it allows you to shoot with a lower ISO, which theoretically delivers better color, less noise, etc. VR won't help freeze action, however, so your wiggly kids will still look blurry. I have VR on my 16-85mm DX Nikkor, which I only occasionally use indoors without a flash. Also, a basic relationship still exists between focal range and image quality. At a given price point, the lens with the greater range will deliver the poorer results; it's simply more expensive for a manufacturer to engineer the more complex optics and mechanics for a big-range lens, which leaves less money available to finely tune a more simple system. My 16-85mm zoom has notably better image quality than Nikon's 18-200mm, and they're nearly the same price at $600. Along the same line, 3rd-party vendors typically trade-off build quality for image quality. So you can find Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina lenses with pretty nice image quality at prices considerably cheaper than a Nikon or Canon lens, but they aren't built as well. And in the end, yes, a pro Sigma will look cleaner than an amateur Nikon, but the comparable pro Nikon will almost always perform better in every category than the pro Sigma. You get what you pay for.
919750
I don't find the speed a problem or much different from the other lenses, but without the VR, it makes a big difference in sharpness. The best use for this without the stabilization is with a tripod.
2183425
There are two different lenses. The older one is the f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. Ken Rockwell reviews both on his web site. I have the older one which is not all that old actually--a couple years. It is an all purpose lens and I keep it on my camera much of the time. Check out the Rockwell reviews for a comprehensive and more technical discussion of each one.
1716983
The real difference is the image stabilization (IS). The quality of the two lenses is very good so you just have to be really really steady or use a stand to work without the IS. Hope this helps
919086
18-300 mm photos are pretty good. With this you do not have to be changing lenses (55 - 300mm). The stabiliser work fine, light is good. Wide angle do not work fine.
1464250
24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor, 28-300mm VR F3.5-5.6 Nikkor, 70-200mm VRII F/2.8, perhaps the 24-24mm F/2.8 if you're after a bit wider.
398589
The Canon 300 is the 300D.The 18-135mm lens has the ability to go wider than the 28-135mm, which, if you were in a tight space, won't allow you to get much in a photo. The 18-135mm also is a more modern lens is 4 stop IS. It also may have auto-panning IS like it's 15-85mm brother, but I am not sure.
1910673
I've got a 18-55 that came with my D40 and I bought the 55-100VR. I don't really miss VR on the shorter lens. I love my D40 bur an itching to step up, so a body only option is welcome. Why is it camera companies assume people are always buying their first camera instead of stepping up? I'd look at the 3200 but it lacks support for the wireless remote, which I have found invaluable for getting into family shots or for long exposures. Cable release just doesn't cut it.
2162149
No. Zoom is a twist-ring.Since I shoot sports with it, I didn't feel it was worth spending $1,000 more for VR. Very sharp lens and am very happy with the purchase.
1111393
I agree that 70-300 VR is a superior choice, but certainly have not been disappointed with my 55-300 VR. It didn't cost as much either.
1254979
N8TE - Thanks for the advice. I will look into the AF-S (especially the 70-300 VR) but it's good to know my old lens is still an option.
1829864
I thought that would matter. It doesn't unless you are doing landscapes. Anything within a hundred feet will be in 3D and be noticeable.Even objects 200-300 feet away are in distinct planes with each eye having them in a slightly different position. The lenses are "toed" in with convergence at about 7-8 feet which makes distant objects also in 3D. Like a brownie instant shot camera for 3D. Better 3D than "The Man of Steel" which is fake 3D. Use the wide angle only for best results.
382300
I most frequently use the lens in a studio environment. The VR seems very good and I am happy to have saved the $1000 over the 2.8 lens.
1461395
I'm new to photography, so I can't answer your question, but here's a link to a discussion on VR (vibration reduction) lenses: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41801372
1873697
The 75-300mm doesn't have Image Stabilization, has (I believe) a different lens grouping, and this has a wider focal length giving you more flexibility as a "walk-around" lens. In basic terms...-Can zoom really wide and really far in, compared to the very zoomed in 75-300mm.-Has image stabilization; good for non shaky video.-better lens grouping.
2044905
This seems odd. I've not thought that before of this lens. I shot part of a wedding ceremony with this lens. You are referring to the vr or the focus motor? Do you have any other lenses with VR? How does it compare?
873522
I am shooting on a Nikon 3200. I went with the 55-300 for its flexibility. It gives great depth of fields and allows me take great pics no matter what. Being in an austere environment this lens works great for long range and close range photograph. The longer 400mm lens has some problems and the 300mm gives better f-stop in my opinion. I found for cost and range of meters to be perfect. Clear shots, great DOF and quickness is great. I shot 90% free hand and have no vibration problems/blurry in my photos thanks to the VR.