Image stabilised zoom lens recommendations

I think I made a mistake when I bought my kit in going for the cheap, ie. non-IS/VC Tamron zoom lens, as I'm struggling at the moment to get clear, sharp shots of moving subjects at max zoom.

So, I think an IS version would be the way to go. Looking at either Tamron 28-300mm or the 16-300mm, as choices which won't break the bank - they seem to be about £400 and £300 respectively in the UK

Any views or other recommendations?

VR is very useful when shooting static subjects at low shutter speeds but it won't help to freeze a moving subject, only a fast shutter will do that. In other words a running dog for example will be blurry at say 1/50th sec whether you have VR or not. It sounds to me like this is the main reason you aren't getting sharp shots.

Saying that not all 300mm zooms are created equal and the VR/VC versions of the 70-300mm not only offer image stabilization, they are also optically better than their cheaper counterparts and will generally give sharper photos, all else being equal. For me that was reason enough to pay more for the VC Tamron and the image stabilisation has helped me to get many shots that would have been impossible without a tripod.

I haven't used either of the lenses you mentioned but there will be some compromise in IQ by having such a wide focal range. They will likely have more distortion and won't be as sharp at the long end as the Nikkor VR 70-300mm which is a similar price.
Essentially you need to ask yourself what is most important to you, a lens that can do everything with no need to switch or a lens that will get you the best results at or near 300mm.

I'm just looking for a comparison review I read some time ago of the various 70-300, 55-300mm lenses for Nikon, that I found useful when I was deciding which one to get. Will post it when I find it.

Found the article I was looking for, unfortunately it doesn't cover the 16-300mm or 28-300mm lenses. 12 best telephoto lenses 2015: the best lenses for Canon & Nikon DSLRs | TechRadar

When I was looking for a 300mm as my main wildlife lens, the VR/VC 70-300mm were the best option. Now I have a longer sharper wildlife lens I'd personally rather have something like the 16-300mm as it would make a much better travel lens for me, as it is significantly smaller and lighter and would mean I only have to pack one lens instead of two or three.
Whichever way you do decide to go some form of VR is very useful as the lenses don't let in much light and without VR at 300mm you will need a minimum of 1/300th second to get sharp shots and nearer to 1/500th if you're using a crop sensor camera.

I think the vc version of my current 70-300mm tamron lens will maybe be the way to go then. A mate of mine bleats on about how good his 16-300 is an a one size fits all lens, but his pics maybe arent any better than mine �� i don't mind carrying or changing lenses to have the right one at any time, rathen than a compromise

robstopper said:

I think I made a mistake when I bought my kit in going for the cheap, ie. non-IS/VC Tamron zoom lens, as I'm struggling at the moment to get clear, sharp shots of moving subjects at max zoom.

So, I think an IS version would be the way to go. Looking at either Tamron 28-300mm or the 16-300mm, as choices which won't break the bank - they seem to be about £400 and £300 respectively in the UK

Any views or other recommendations?

Click to expand...

I would recommend you spend the money on a lens with image stabilization. I bought the Sigma counter to the Tamron and went with an 18-250 (at the time they did not have 18-300) because I walk for my therapy and I could not really deal with changing lens on my walks and I wanted the versatility for those times. Between the Tamron and Sigma, (the ones I could afford), it had the best review. If that is what you want for walking around car events and are willing to compromise some on IQ, go with one of these super zooms. Go to DP Review or some place comparable and read what they say and what people that own them say.

If you can carry a couple lenses get the 70-300 Nikon used and look for a shorter lens for the close up work. I have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 without image stabilization that works well. I just keep the shutter speed a minimum of 2X the focal length and I am usually OK.

robstopper said:

I think I made a mistake when I bought my kit in going for the cheap, ie. non-IS/VC Tamron zoom lens, as I'm struggling at the moment to get clear, sharp shots of moving subjects at max zoom.

Click to expand...

Are you consistently keeping the shutter speed at a minimum or 1.5 times the focal length? If you were shooting a 300mm lens at "full zoom" that would mean shooting at no less than 1/450 and that's just to keep to keep camera shake under control. If you're shooting fast action it's likely you would to need to shoot at even higher shutter speeds to freeze the action.

Sometimes I don't want to use a quick shutter speed, as I want a bit of motion blur - like on a fast moving car on track, or like the last few shots on this thread - http://nikonites.com/photo-feedback/36240-few-duxford-spring-car-show.html#post553286 some planes I shot yesterday. The Blenheim was at down 1/160, and the props look virtually static, so I'd ideally want 1/100. Using high s/s to minimise camera shake gives me a more frozen shot than I really want.

robstopper said:

Sometimes I don't want to use a quick shutter speed, as I want a bit of motion blur - like on a fast moving car on track, or like the last few shots on this thread - http://nikonites.com/photo-feedback/36240-few-duxford-spring-car-show.html#post553286 some planes I shot yesterday. The Blenheim was at down 1/160, and the props look virtually static, so I'd ideally want 1/100. Using high s/s to minimise camera shake gives me a more frozen shot than I really want.

Click to expand...

Well that's going to be an issue, then, assuming you're shooting hand-held. Problem is, when you magnify the image, you're also magnifying camera shake. If you want to shoot without camera motion at shutter speeds slower than 1.5x the focal length to get the motion blur you want, I'd suggest a mono/tripod.

yeh, that's what i feared, and hoped an image stabilised lens would help mitigate? My shots are getting better, but its still moving subjects at max zoom that I struggle to keep stable enough on. Coming from a low zoom bridge camera which was a bit more tolerant, I'm learning that you need slightly better camera handling skills!

robstopper said:

yeh, that's what i feared, and hoped an image stabilised lens would help mitigate? My shots are getting better, but its still moving subjects at max zoom that I struggle to keep stable enough on. Coming from a low zoom bridge camera which was a bit more tolerant, I'm learning that you need slightly better camera handling skills!

Click to expand...

The right OS/VR (et al) enabled lens will definitely help, no doubt about that, but don't expect it to work miracles.

Always going to be a compromise somewhere along the way. If i can end up getting a shot i'm happy with and my mate doesnt moan about it having lost all the motion effect, i'll be happy lol

Got a flight alongside a Spitfire for some air to air photography in two weeks, so want to make sure i get the best shots possible!

I'm trying to decide between the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD VC Di AF USD, the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom Lens Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, and the Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 G ED VR, all are available on ebay for about the same money. I'd hoped to trade in my old Tamron lens at my local Jessops, but they only do trade-in against kit over £300!!!

Any preferences, pros/cons?

My Tamron 70-300 just came in the mail today. I went with the SP model for the vibration control.

Jessops have offered me about £38 trade-in on my old lens, I'm just waiting to hear from them if I can do that in-store so I can get the VC version there and then.

Lots of great advice already posted so won't repeat (well not too much).

VR is good. But good technique is better. Somewhere I read something like IQ is 90% skill and 10% equipment. Or something like that.

That being said some lenses are just stinkers. And that can be a problem with your particular copy of that lens. Sometimes this can be corrected in the camera by making adjustments in the camera (I don't know if all camera models have lens adjustment capacity).

I have an old non-VR Siggy 100-300 in my collection. It is collecting dust. It worked dandy when I shot film decades ago - now when I go pixel peeping I can see it isn't nearly as sharp as say my Tamron 70-300 VR or a Nikon 70-200 2.8.

As for going cheap. Sometimes a cheap lens is tack sharp - images taken with my AFD 50mm 1.8 ($100 lens) are as sharpe as 50mm images taken with my $1300 Tamron 24-70. But I'm comparing a classic prime to a zoom.

Thanks for that. I agree, better technique will help, but as my technique is still developing, I think I need the assistance that VR will give me. I was at a racemeet at Silverstone yesterday, and some of my shots were OK, some still lacking in the quality that I want. I will get better, I know, but in the interim I need some assistance from the equipment.

I've just bought a slightly used Tamron one off Amazon.