70-300

Mr. Quiet

I just got a AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mmf/4-5.6G lens, and I was wondering if any of you guys use it and I would like to know how it has worked for you.

Thanks!

Mav

I'd be interested too!

Having spent a couple hours at the beach this weekend feeling too far away from the action on the water, a 300mm lens is calling...

GP Images

It's a slow plastic $100 lens. Works ok, just doesn't have the optics of more expensive glass. Don't have high expectations and you will not be dissapointed.

Cygnus Studios

I own the Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron versions of this lens, and they are okay for fun shots. It is light enough for a walk around lens, and it has enough reach for city use.
For the price, keeping in mind the limitations, it is well worth it.

ghinson

GP Images wrote:

It's a slow plastic $100 lens. Works ok, just doesn't have the optics of more expensive glass. Don't have high expectations and you will not be dissapointed.

I was looking at this lens to replace my damaged 18-200 VR lens. The 70-300 VR lens has pretty good reviews online (check out the bythom.com review), and the prices I have seen have been in the $500-600 range. I haven't seen it for $100. Are you talking about a different lens.

I was also considering getting one of the 28-200 F3.5 G lens that is a few years old. Can't quite afford the 70-200 f2.8 VRII lens yet ($2400).

Mr. Quiet

Last night I played with it in low light conditions, and it performed nicely. I will try it out in strong light today.


"It's a slow plastic $100 lens. Works ok, just doesn't have the optics of more expensive glass. Don't have high expectations and you will not be dissapointed." When you have good light, most lenses can be fast. As to the price you quoted, I got mine second hand for more then what you said.......

Mr. Quiet

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I own the Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron versions of this lens, and they are okay for fun shots. It is light enough for a walk around lens, and it has enough reach for city use.
For the price, keeping in mind the limitations, it is well worth it.

I agree

bloomphotog

From a full-frame, D700 POV:
I have one of the 70-300G lenses, paid $75 so my expectations were VERY low. It's no pro glass but it's still decent.

PROs: Decent IQ past f/8. Pretty good bokeh.

CONs: Inconsistent continuous AF; sometimes it keeps up with the action, most times not. For print, it's soft on the long end. Noticeably less color and contrast when compared to my newer pro glass.

If you don't have any long glass...get this lens...and then use it while you decide what to replace it with. eg: 80-200 f/2.8 & 300 f/4 It makes for great web images and snapshots. Can't be beat for the money.

Played around with it this weekend at a local dog fair:







A few of the shots ended up in the local paper, FWIW.

Mr. Quiet

I noticed last night it has some problem focusing in low light?

ziggy53

Used prices can indeed be as low as $100USD for this lens. (J&R has it new for $150) It can be OK if used as a 70-200mm, f/5.6-8. It will not be terribly sharp at open aperture nor at 300mm. It is pretty slow to focus in low light and low contrast situations.

Do not bump it around too much as it has a plastic mount and many plastic innards. (It is a structural plastic, but still ...)

I have a similar Tamron lens and it is OK for the price.

http://www.jr.com/nikon/pe/NKN_70_hy_300MM_SL_G/

ghinson

Sorry. I was confusing it with the current VR version.

This one: http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm

ziggy53

ghinson wrote:

Sorry. I was confusing it with the current VR version.

This one: http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm

With VR and the ED element it is a "much" better lens.

Mr. Quiet

Mine does pretty good hand-held without VR. For me that is good, because a D200 is like a diesel truck on batteries! IT'S a HOG!!!!!