[Hoo Haa]

Excuse my lack of knowledge on this subject, but from looking at some threads I can see some very expensive lenses being used, with excellent results.

Now for someone like me with a £100 Nikon 70-300mm lens, how much money would I have to spend to see a significant improvement ?

[Steve]

I'll leave this to one of the Nikon boys as I am a Canon shooter myself.

On saying that if you are happy to use third party manufactures equipment, I believe many people are very happy with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG which is at £140 is not classed as an expensive lens.

[Steve]

Actually after reading your other post I'd like to point out that the above lens is availible in both Nikon and Canon fittings. You must buy the correct one for your make of camera though, they are not interchangable.

[Joe T]

I would classify a 'decent' lens to be anything as good as the sigma 70-200 2.8 or better. That kind of rpcie range is where things really kick off.

However, good shots can be gotten with cheaper lenses, such as the one Steve mentioned, which is very good for the money - see my review in the equipment section. Howeve,r to upgrade from that I really had to buy the Sigma 120-300 2.8 which is 10x the price!