[inc0municad0]

I'm looking for a 70-300 lens for my Nikon D80, is there any real advantage in spending the extra on a Nikon lens or would the results on a cheaper Tamron have any noticible difference? Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

[Dave Bartram]

I've only used Nikon zooms (70-300ED, 70-200 F2.8VR) and what I have now 70-300 VR and very pleased withh all of them. Can't answer you question but I'd plump for the Nikon(s).

[Pirate!!]

Ahoy!

Can't comment on Nikon's own brand, but a decent budget garden variety with excellent macro is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (red ring).

[dazza74]

I'd spend the extra on the Nikon VR lens personally, I've never regretted spending the extra on it and once you start getting beyond 200mm it's hard I feel to handhold without VR IMO it's also a very sharp lens

[nictry]

Having recently tried the Tamron 28-300 IS against my Nikon 70-300 VR I can categorically state that the Nikon in terms of IQ is far superior, I also prev owned the Sigma APO and the Nikon is a clear jump ahead of that too.

If you can spend the money then the VR is the one to go for at this length. OR if you7 want to consider a little more money and a longer length I picked up the new Sigma 120-400 OS and again testing up against the Nikon and the Tamron I personally feel at 300mm it is better than both and although prob a little slow for sports it is the same 4.5-5.6 as the Nikon and I can use it fine for football and even at 400mm it has fab IQ at normal size pics (perhaps a little soft at full size) but it is a heavy lens so that is also a little due to camera shake too (even with OS on!!!!)

Hope that helps a little (and throws another choice into the mix!)