#3. "RE: nikkor AF-S VR 70-300 mm IF-ED vs G" In response to Reply # 0
In addition to what Joseph said, I'll add that the 70-300 G (the $140 one) is in my experience simply not worth the money. There are quite a few other lenses that are inexpensive that ARE worthwhile, so I don't see any good reason to get this one. It's the only current Nikkor that I simply cannot recommend.
If you're really after a 70-300 lens, the Nikkor 70-300 AFS VR is a good one, albeit a bit on the expensive side at almost $600.
- Sigma 70-300 OS DG, fully compatible with AF on all bodies, has OS (the equivalent of AFS) although not as quick to focus as the AFS. About $450. Good lens, and OS - like the VR in the Nikkor - makes it relatively easy to get good results.
- Sigma 70-300 APO Macro DG with motor (the latter part is important, because this is how it does AF), about $240. Has a nice 1:2 macro feature, too. Pretty good lens. Lacks OS or VR, so is harder to get the best out of it.
- Sigma 70-300 DL Macro DG with motor (the latter part is important), about $150. Not as good as anything else listed here except of course the Nikkor above, but still good enough to be useful, with care and attention to detail.
- Nikkor 55-200 AFS VR, about $200. Not as long as the 70-300's, but has VR and is less expensive.
Tamron makes some 70-300's too, but I'm not familiar with them.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!