Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G

Go to last post
F

fenerb

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
VA, US
I was reading Ken Rocwell's review about this particular lense and became interested purchasing one as he called a "bargain" for what you get from a $170 purchase

I was wondering if any of you had this lense for a while and have some experience with it. If you have any shots you like I'd love see them too.

Thanks!

KR's link to the review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm
 
If you do a search on the forum you will have lots of info on that lens.

It's okay considering the price but the the Tamron 55-200/4-5.6 (or the Nikon counterpart for that matter) is a better choice if you don't need to go all the way to 300mm. For a lens that reaches 300mm the Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO DG is a better choice.

The you have these used lenses to look at, that all are better than the 70-300G:

AF 70-210/4-5.6(D)
AF 70-210/4
AF 80-200/4.5-5.6D
AF 75-300/4.5-5.6
fenerb said:
I was reading Ken Rocwell's review about this particular lense and
became interested purchasing one as he called a "bargain" for what
you get from a $170 purchase

I was wondering if any of you had this lense for a while and have
some experience with it. If you have any shots you like I'd love
see them too.

Thanks!

KR's link to the review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm
Click to expand...
 
I've had this lens for a while now together with the D70s.

If you know it's weaknesses and it's best "settings" it's a pretty good performer, I paid almost nothing for a used copy in excellent condition, couldn't tell it had been used.

I has gotten me a lot of good pics - but beware - only in bright sunlight outside.

Here's a lot of pictures from this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/70-300_4g
 
fenerb said:
Thanks for the samples and the suggestions. I liked both samples
however seems like more people are leaning towards the Sigma.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood me. Both samples were taken with the Sigma, which I think it is a lot better than the Nikkor.

--
Regards,
Pedro
 
Within its limitations, the lens is an extraordinarily good deal. Don't pay $170; buy the gray market version from Adorama (or similar) for $99. You don't need a warranty for this cheap lens.

But, definitely expect to have to learn how to use the lens. Focus is slow and flaky in all but very good light. Shooting moving subjects will be a very big challenge since the lens is not at all bright. Also, you won't be able to get much DoF separation with only f/4-5.6. I recommend a monopod for stability.

If you learn how to use it, it will reward you with very good results. Buy the cheap gray market and save your money for a good used 80-200 f/2.8 for when you can carry the weight.

I have posted 70-300G image links on several other threads.

Doug
 
D Knisely said:
But, definitely expect to have to learn how to use the lens. Focus
is slow and flaky in all but very good light. Shooting moving
subjects will be a very big challenge since the lens is not at all
bright. Also, you won't be able to get much DoF separation with
only f/4-5.6. I recommend a monopod for stability.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the Sigma, then I disagree in some respects (actually, I've heard the same said of any 70-300 f4-5.6 lens, so I guess this applies to the Nikon/Tamron as well)

I shot these two days after I got my Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 (not the APO) and only a month after getting my D50 which is my first DSLR, it was a very gloomy overcast day with frequent heavy rain. Several people told me that even £95 was a waste of money as it would be useless, especially for motorsport which is why I bought it. Whilst my shots aren't superb, they fully justified the purchase to me.

The Sigma blew me away with it's quick autofocusing and ease of use. All below are between 100-300mm handheld in S mode using various shutter speeds, usually 1/250 or 1/320, most cars were travelling in excess of 90mph (150kmh).

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/gallery/2032578









 
Harry S said:
D Knisely said:
But, definitely expect to have to learn how to use the lens. Focus
is slow and flaky in all but very good light. Shooting moving
subjects will be a very big challenge since the lens is not at all
bright. Also, you won't be able to get much DoF separation with
only f/4-5.6. I recommend a monopod for stability.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the Sigma, then I disagree in some
respects (actually, I've heard the same said of any 70-300 f4-5.6
lens, so I guess this applies to the Nikon/Tamron as well)

I shot these two days after I got my Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 (not the
APO) and only a month after getting my D50 which is my first DSLR,
it was a very gloomy overcast day with frequent heavy rain. Several
people told me that even £95 was a waste of money as it would be
useless, especially for motorsport which is why I bought it. Whilst
my shots aren't superb, they fully justified the purchase to me.

The Sigma blew me away with it's quick autofocusing and ease of
use. All below are between 100-300mm handheld in S mode using
various shutter speeds, usually 1/250 or 1/320, most cars were
travelling in excess of 90mph (150kmh).

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/gallery/2032578









Click to expand...
If this is not a great lense how would be a great one? They look very sharp

to me. I think we should all be open minded about the $ figure -

sometimes you can buy good things at decent prices. If you had told the

forum these shots were results of 18/200 VR Nikkor people would be

praising all night long - tell me if I'm wrong.
 
fenerb said:
If this is not a great lense how would be a great one? They look
very sharp

to me. I think we should all be open minded about the $ figure -

sometimes you can buy good things at decent prices. If you had told
the

forum these shots were results of 18/200 VR Nikkor people would be

praising all night long - tell me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree, too much emphasis is put on the value of a lens. If you practice constantly (or happen be naturally talented) you will get fantastic results regardless of the "size of your equipment" so to speak.

The heat I got for even suggesting buying the Sigma was incredible, "completely pointless", "you need to spend at least £500 to get good shots" etc etc is entirely unfounded in my opinion. Sure you need to work a bit harder to get some great shots, but you learn so much more when working within specific constraints, and half the fun is the challenge of getting good shots in the first place.
 
...some people around here say this lens is junk...

That hasn't been my experience at all. I paid $99 for mine brand new and find if I use it with good technique within it's limits I can get real nice results...

Here's a few I took with the 70-300G and my D70...

Bob













--
'Photography is more about depth of feeling than depth of field'
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo
 
i just got this lense and i still have 1 week before i can return it to the store and so far my experience with this lense is....i'm very impressed...

shooting with this lense and the sb800..using f/8-f/11 and a shutter of 500 indoor all my pics are very sharp... i don't even have to sharpen the photos...direct from d70s with sharpening to +2.

i have not tried using it under direct sunlight because our weather is still cloudy here.

but indoor with sb800 the lense is very sharp and all my photos are taken using the 300mm as i want to see how soft the lense is as how i understand it. but using f/8-11 photos are crisp.
so i think i will keep the lense.
 
These are good pictures and the lens worked in this situation, but of course that means that the lens was good enough for the situation. A great lens would let you keep on shooting as the sun started to go down, and in-doors in the snack bar, too.

I have the Nikon 70-300G and I can recommend it especially if you can get it second hand. If I could have gotten the Sigma for the same price, I would have been a Sigma owner. They both seem to be about the same, even though the Sigma has the "macro" feature. Some people have said that they get bored with the quality of the macro after a short while. If you really need macro, you will need to start looking at other lenses, anyway.

Guy Moscoso
Harry S said:
fenerb said:
If this is not a great lense how would be a great one? They look
very sharp

to me. I think we should all be open minded about the $ figure -

sometimes you can buy good things at decent prices. If you had told
the

forum these shots were results of 18/200 VR Nikkor people would be

praising all night long - tell me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree, too much emphasis is put on the value of a lens. If you
practice constantly (or happen be naturally talented) you will get
fantastic results regardless of the "size of your equipment" so to
speak.

The heat I got for even suggesting buying the Sigma was incredible,
"completely pointless", "you need to spend at least £500 to get
good shots" etc etc is entirely unfounded in my opinion. Sure you
need to work a bit harder to get some great shots, but you learn so
much more when working within specific constraints, and half the
fun is the challenge of getting good shots in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
Mofongo said:
...some people around here say this lens is junk...

That hasn't been my experience at all. I paid $99 for mine brand
new and find if I use it with good technique within it's limits I
can get real nice results...

Here's a few I took with the 70-300G and my D70...

Bob













--
'Photography is more about depth of feeling than depth of field'
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo
Click to expand...
I loved the pictures - thanks for posting them. The lense is selling for about $170 at ritz camera currently and sold out at penn camera in my neck of the woods (va, md, dc area)
 
bob your pics look great, i sent you an email with some questions, but meant to ask are those pics toched up on photo shop or are they right off the camera. by the way they look great!!! nice color and sharp! gary
 
I think that Harry S qualifies as understanding the limitations of the 70-300 lens and using good technique in good light. They are very good shots. I think that you knew how to keep the shutter speed fast and pan with the subject.

This is the best motion shot that I have gotten with the 70-300G:



Doug
fenerb said:
Harry S said:
D Knisely said:
But, definitely expect to have to learn how to use the lens. Focus
is slow and flaky in all but very good light. Shooting moving
subjects will be a very big challenge since the lens is not at all
bright. Also, you won't be able to get much DoF separation with
only f/4-5.6. I recommend a monopod for stability.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the Sigma, then I disagree in some
respects (actually, I've heard the same said of any 70-300 f4-5.6
lens, so I guess this applies to the Nikon/Tamron as well)

I shot these two days after I got my Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 (not the
APO) and only a month after getting my D50 which is my first DSLR,
it was a very gloomy overcast day with frequent heavy rain. Several
people told me that even £95 was a waste of money as it would be
useless, especially for motorsport which is why I bought it. Whilst
my shots aren't superb, they fully justified the purchase to me.

The Sigma blew me away with it's quick autofocusing and ease of
use. All below are between 100-300mm handheld in S mode using
various shutter speeds, usually 1/250 or 1/320, most cars were
travelling in excess of 90mph (150kmh).
Click to expand...
If this is not a great lense how would be a great one? They look
very sharp

to me. I think we should all be open minded about the $ figure -

sometimes you can buy good things at decent prices. If you had told
the

forum these shots were results of 18/200 VR Nikkor people would be

praising all night long - tell me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Mofongo said:
...some people around here say this lens is junk...

That hasn't been my experience at all. I paid $99 for mine brand
new and find if I use it with good technique within it's limits I
can get real nice results...

Here's a few I took with the 70-300G and my D70...

Bob
Click to expand...
Nice shots. I'll just dump a link to my 70-300G ($99 gray version). It is a tremendous value for sure, but you should not have unrealistic expectations.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dnk/tags/nikkor70300g/

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
  • Question Question
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G VR Hood indicator
Replies
3
Views
4K
monte12345
M
I
Nikon D7000 + Tamron AF 70-300 f/4-5.6 (172DN) fEE Error - Need Help!
Replies
7
Views
5K
Insanus
I
al404
Nikon 300mm f4 PF vs Tamron Z 70-300mm
2
Replies
34
Views
15K
Martin Muehlemann
Martin Muehlemann
Vasilis Delis
On the vintage Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI lens (vs. Nikon 16-85 lens)
Replies
10
Views
3K
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson
B
  • For sale For sale
NIKON NIKKOR Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S - BASICALLY NEW! $785
Replies
1
Views
929
BryanDecker
B

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top