Hoosierdaddy's reviews

  • Vivitar 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 Series 1 AF

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    Long focal length range for a low price
    Very SOFT at 400mm wide-open, but good 2 stops down (except corners). Slow autofocus.

    I bought this to shoot airshows and kids' outdoor sports (soccer, baseball, football), originally on a film body but the last few years on a DX digital body. For those uses it is great, considering I paid so little for it. However the autofocus is way too slow for moving subjects, even in daylight, so I focus it manually nearly all the time. A "10"...for the money.

    reviewed January 11th, 2011 (purchased for $190)

  • Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor

    10 out of 10 points and recommended
    Sharp, fast, built like a tank.
    Heavy to haul around for very long. A-M switch broke, had to tape it in one pos.

    2-touch. Bought used about 10 years ago to shoot kids' high school stage shows and outdoor sports in low light; also have used it for portraits and about a dozen weddings. Perfect for all the above. Very sharp at any aperture and focal length. My choice was not this vs. spend $2000 more on the 70-200 VR, it was this or a 70-210 f/4. I have been very happy with this lens on both film & DX digital bodies.

    reviewed January 19th, 2011 (purchased for $400)

  • Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR AF-S Nikkor

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Sharp over most of the range, nice VR, great for the $
    A bit larger than I would like, disappointing IQ at 300mm wide-open

    Bought "Nikon refurbished" but it looks new. Between this and the 55-300 @$399, I liked the size & weight of the 55-300 but it took longer for the VR to stabilize and AF was slower, so got the 70-300 because I would use it for sports and candids where a quick response was essential. My only disappointment is IQ at 300mm at or near wide open (which is where I use it a lot). The dealer did not have Tamron's new 70-300 and having not yet read anything about it I dismissed it, but that may have bee a mistake as I have read that at 300mm it's sharper than this Nikon, and less expensive.

    reviewed January 20th, 2011 (purchased for $425)