DSLRUsers.com

D70 Camera: I'm looking to purchase a Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm F 4-5.6. Any feedback or issues I should know about this lens?

Natz, learn to use the search tool!

A quick version is it is a cheap lens which can produce ok results in sunny weather. Search and you will find pages on this lens, there are 3 versions for starters, then Sigma make a similar one etc. Have fun

Save up your pennies and get a 2nd hand 80-200 f2.8...or save up even more pennies and get the 70-200 VR

If it's zoom ability I'm after - isn't the 300 better than the 200?
(Real newbie - so please forgive my ignorance).

Hi Glen

I've tried the search - without luck - somehow the work system blocks any of these searches - v frustrating.

I'll promise to use search when using the home system.

Natz, the size of the image from a 300mm lens is larger of a distant object than a 200mm. The quality of the image of a $400 lens compared to a $2000 lens is crap though in many non ideal situations.

Point taken.

Some excerpts from my For Sale post a while back, I sold my 70-300G.

Well, the time has finally come!! It didn't really take long enough to say "finally", but what the hell... Due to my acquisition of the excellent 80-200/2.8, my faithful 70-300G is up for sale.

Yes, the (in)famous 70-300G! You've all done the research, you know what this lens is capable of. Sure, it's no 70-200VR... but with good technique and favourable conditions, you can get some pretty decent results. It's happiest shooting at f/8 or higher, and under 200mm. Quite soft at 300mm and wide open. Very light and compact compared to the f/2.8 lenses. Focusing is reasonably slow, and the front filter thread rotates when focusing. This is a G series lens, so does not have an aperture ring.

Some pics taken with said lens:

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=16158
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=16628

So basically, it's a crap lens, but you can still get resonable results if the conditions are good. There's a couple of versions, the 70-300G is the cheapest and worst. The 70-300 ED has slightly better build quality, but I've heard that optically it is virtually identical to the 70-300G.

If you can get one cheap enough, it's not a bad lens.

remember, the focal length alone is not the ultimate measure of a lens' quality. I used to own the 70-300G, and compared to my current telephoto, the 80-200/2.8, it just doesn't stack up.

The 70-300 has:
Greater focal range
Longer maximum focal length
Lighter
smaller
cheaper

The 80-200 has
better build quality (more solid)
much faster focusing
MUCH sharper images
Wider, CONSTANT maximum aperture (2.8 vs 4.5-5.6)

It's always a compromise

Thanks for your feedback - really good stuff.

You're right - the difference is significant on all fronts. I'm buying the 70-300mm for $199. So this is a good compremise for a beginner. I'll have to wait until I've mastered the basics on my cheapie lens - and then later move up to the other options.

Thanks again for taking the time to share.

Natz - I started off with the 28-300 Tamron lens, which gave me great results at a cheap price ..... I still pull the old girl out and use her when I don't want to lug around the 80-200 Nikon (just a tad heavy). The tamron is a great starter lens, and is much sharper than the G lens.

Just a thought

Rel

Natz.

I did the same thing that you are thinking. Buy 70-300g and build the skills. I have had it 4 months and am now selling a Motorbike to get some prime glass.

The only thing that I would say is that there are other 70-300's out there that are sharper and also have a macro function. Had I done my research a little better I would have brought one of them instead.

If you go to my Flickr page and check out the surfing gallery you will see some examples of this lens at 300mm. Given the right conditions and a little paitence you can make it sing. However you can pretty much forget it in bad light.

I've never used the 70-300G, so take all comments with a grain of salt

I've got the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (damn that's a long lens name), and for its price I'm happy with it. It cost more like $300 , but that included a lens hood and bag, which the Nikkor doesn't have.

Like any $300 lens, wide open it isn't great. Stopped down to f8, I honestly reckon the shots I've taken and seen out of it are better than the Nikon variants, especially the bokeh which is pretty damn good for a cheap lens.

It also has a dinky macro mode that lets you get as close as 1:2 magnification. Check out some shots macka (my partner) took here. That lens can be seriously sharp! Of course, the macro mode is no competition for a real macro lens, especially as the focal length for those types of shots is 300mm, which makes hand holding very difficult.

Hope this if of some use,

A workmate lent me his 70-300 over the weekend.

Wow .. .what can I say ? ... I was determined to get a 70-200 VR, but then played with his 70-300. Quite frankly I do not know whether I even want a telephoto lens now.

The zoom was so much greater than I had expected, even at 70.

Wasn't really practical for my requirements. I walked up the street to try and take a photo of my house, but still couldnt fit it in. If I was a bird watcher or plane spotter it'd be different im sure.

I did take some really ordinary pics of my car which i'll post later tonight when i'm home.

Cheers,
Seedy

seedyrom wrote:Wow .. .what can I say ? ... I was determined to get a 70-200 VR, but then played with his 70-300. Quite frankly I do not know whether I even want a telephoto lens now.

Congratulations, you've just saved yourself a lot of money

As with everything, it all depends on need at the time. I don't shoot a lot of landscapes or walkaround shots with my 80-200, but it DOES get a good workout for sports and portraits.

My suggestion is that if you never handled a telephoto lens before, its always best to get started with a smaller and lighter telephoto lens before moving into the "3-pounders" range.

I started off a 28-210 zoom while in the film ages, then moved along to a 70-210 and then 70-300, and now Im with my 300mm f/4.

My point is, if you never handled a telephoto, its best idea to go for small ones and get a feeling and develop telophoto techniques before moving on to the pro quality glasses. Heavier and longer lenses require some skills in handling them and just hearing from your expertise in the fields, a decent $300-400 telephoto lens is capable to produce better images than you can take. Please dont take this personal, but that was my opinion to start off with.
Later on when you are more comfortable with telephoto range lenses, and know what exactly you're after in photography, you'll know exactly what to buy.



(*And the lust continues*)

i was suprised by the plastic lenses mount for this lenses.
i can't comment on image quality, prehaps a test at your local store

Here's a couple of beginners shots with a 70-300. And no, I wasnt that close to Telstra Stadium ... but it was zoomed 'out' as much as it could go. Just to give you an idea of the reach of these things (I was trying to get as far away from telstra to get a nice shot of the car with the stadium behind)







Whoops, sorry about that ... must have just slipped in

I would seriously consider the Sigma 70-300DG APOII as it has the macro function and metal lens mount that the Nikon 70-300G misses out on.

As for quality, in doing my research most forums said the Nikon and Sigma were much the same.

I had to be quite a way back for these