Convince me! 70-300mm

DGMPhotography

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
718
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hi there,

So I'm considering buying the Nikkor 70-300mm AF-S telephoto lens. However, I'm not 100% sold on it yet! Spending money makes me nervous. I've looked it up myself but would love some feedback from my friends here at TPF, who might know me and my experience/love for photography.

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
http://amzn.com/B000HJPK2C

Discuss!

Thanks!

EDIT:

My current gear is -

Nikon D5100
18-55mm kit lens
50mm f/1.8 prime lens

Thus I am lacking a long zoom lens. I love astrophotography, and it would be neat to try out wildlife and sports photography in which case I would need a longer zoom.

I know what the lens' specifications are and what it does; I'm looking for a more personal reasoning based on what you may know of my experience/goals, and based on your own experience (if you have this lens).
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
What gear do you have currently ?

For what do you need the AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR ?

Its a very popular piece of glass, but its of course darker than a 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 VR, so thats an issue if you want to shoot sports in bad light.
 
it's worth the $300.
 
What do you want to know about it? I've had mine for 3 or 4 years and wouldn't be without it. If it broke today I'd either get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.
 
What gear do you have currently ?

For what do you need the AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR ?

Its a very popular piece of glass, but its of course darker than a 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 VR, so thats an issue if you want to shoot sports in bad light.

See edit :)
 
What do you want to know about it? I've had mine for 3 or 4 years and wouldn't be without it. If it broke today I'd either get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I want to know why you would get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.
 
From anyone who ever owned it, i've heard nothing but praise. Go for it if you have the funds.
 
What do you want to know about it? I've had mine for 3 or 4 years and wouldn't be without it. If it broke today I'd either get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I want to know why you would get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I would second Scott's statement, but to expound on it:

For the money, it's just a great, versatile and reasonably sharp lens. I own a Sigma 150-500 for birds/wildlife now, but I wouldn't get rid of my 70-300. There are times that taking my 150-500 with me isn't that feasible--like when I'm trying to pack a small pack and take it to work with me, so I can go out and shoot at lunchtime.
I own a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, a Tokina 100 f/2.8, the 18-55 kit lens and the Sigma longer lens mentioned above. The IQ of the 70-300 holds up very well against all of those except maybe the Sigma 50mm.
I'm actually about to go out and try to get some pics of the Veteran's Day Parade (which starts right in front of the building where I work)--IF my sore chest will allow me to hold the camera for long. I'll be using that 70-300, same as I did last year, because it's just the most versatile lens I've got in my bag.

So yeah--basically, great price, nice quality, very decent IQ, not that heavy…just a great all-around lens!
 
Hi there,

So I'm considering buying the Nikkor 70-300mm AF-S telephoto lens. However, I'm not 100% sold on it yet! Spending money makes me nervous. I've looked it up myself but would love some feedback from my friends here at TPF, who might know me and my experience/love for photography.

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Amazon.com: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

Discuss!

Thanks!

EDIT:

My current gear is -

Nikon D5100
18-55mm kit lens
50mm f/1.8 prime lens

Thus I am lacking a long zoom lens. I love astrophotography, and it would be neat to try out wildlife and sports photography in which case I would need a longer zoom.

I know what the lens' specifications are and what it does; I'm looking for a more personal reasoning based on what you may know of my experience/goals, and based on your own experience (if you have this lens).

I absolutely love mine. Everything in my Flickr photostream Flickr: robbins.photo's Photostream that was shot with the D5100 was shot with this lens, just to give you a few samples. It's a nice sharp lens, focusing speed is good, and the focusing is all internal which makes it a lot easier to use with a CPL or similar adjustable filters. For the focal length it's fairly lightweight and portable and it just gives good, predictable results. Well worth the money I spent on it.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
What do you want to know about it? I've had mine for 3 or 4 years and wouldn't be without it. If it broke today I'd either get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I want to know why you would get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I would second Scott's statement, but to expound on it:

For the money, it's just a great, versatile and reasonably sharp lens. I own a Sigma 150-500 for birds/wildlife now, but I wouldn't get rid of my 70-300. There are times that taking my 150-500 with me isn't that feasible--like when I'm trying to pack a small pack and take it to work with me, so I can go out and shoot at lunchtime.
I own a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, a Tokina 100 f/2.8, the 18-55 kit lens and the Sigma longer lens mentioned above. The IQ of the 70-300 holds up very well against all of those except maybe the Sigma 50mm.
I'm actually about to go out and try to get some pics of the Veteran's Day Parade (which starts right in front of the building where I work)--IF my sore chest will allow me to hold the camera for long. I'll be using that 70-300, same as I did last year, because it's just the most versatile lens I've got in my bag.

So yeah--basically, great price, nice quality, very decent IQ, not that heavy…just a great all-around lens!

Thanks for the feedback! In terms of the lenses you own... I've been wondering about getting 3rd party lenses, in comparison to Nikon's. The price is better, and you may be able to get a longer zoom for less, but some of the side-by-side comparison images I've seen have deterred me. What is your take on the matter?
 
I want to know why you would get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

Do more searching on here. You'll find that 9/10 reviews on it highly praise the lens. I don't know what more you want to know if the information is staring you in the face :p. I plan on purchasing it as my next lens.
 
I want to know why you would get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I would second Scott's statement, but to expound on it:

For the money, it's just a great, versatile and reasonably sharp lens. I own a Sigma 150-500 for birds/wildlife now, but I wouldn't get rid of my 70-300. There are times that taking my 150-500 with me isn't that feasible--like when I'm trying to pack a small pack and take it to work with me, so I can go out and shoot at lunchtime.
I own a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, a Tokina 100 f/2.8, the 18-55 kit lens and the Sigma longer lens mentioned above. The IQ of the 70-300 holds up very well against all of those except maybe the Sigma 50mm.
I'm actually about to go out and try to get some pics of the Veteran's Day Parade (which starts right in front of the building where I work)--IF my sore chest will allow me to hold the camera for long. I'll be using that 70-300, same as I did last year, because it's just the most versatile lens I've got in my bag.

So yeah--basically, great price, nice quality, very decent IQ, not that heavy…just a great all-around lens!

Thanks for the feedback! In terms of the lenses you own... I've been wondering about getting 3rd party lenses, in comparison to Nikon's. The price is better, and you may be able to get a longer zoom for less, but some of the side-by-side comparison images I've seen have deterred me. What is your take on the matter?

You need to make a list of the things your lens needs to be capable of with the maximum amount you are willing to spend.



Things to consider (in so specific order):
1. quality of the glass
2. durability of the lens
3. How big of an aperture you need
4. what you will be using it for


Depending on these variables, you need to decide what is more important to you and where you will make compromises.
 
I want to know why you would get it fixed or buy a new one just like it.

I would second Scott's statement, but to expound on it:

For the money, it's just a great, versatile and reasonably sharp lens. I own a Sigma 150-500 for birds/wildlife now, but I wouldn't get rid of my 70-300. There are times that taking my 150-500 with me isn't that feasible--like when I'm trying to pack a small pack and take it to work with me, so I can go out and shoot at lunchtime.
I own a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, a Tokina 100 f/2.8, the 18-55 kit lens and the Sigma longer lens mentioned above. The IQ of the 70-300 holds up very well against all of those except maybe the Sigma 50mm.
I'm actually about to go out and try to get some pics of the Veteran's Day Parade (which starts right in front of the building where I work)--IF my sore chest will allow me to hold the camera for long. I'll be using that 70-300, same as I did last year, because it's just the most versatile lens I've got in my bag.

So yeah--basically, great price, nice quality, very decent IQ, not that heavy…just a great all-around lens!

Thanks for the feedback! In terms of the lenses you own... I've been wondering about getting 3rd party lenses, in comparison to Nikon's. The price is better, and you may be able to get a longer zoom for less, but some of the side-by-side comparison images I've seen have deterred me. What is your take on the matter?

I think it really depends on the lens. But overall, the BIGGEST downside that *I* know of to the bigger-name third-party brands--Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma--is that the lens quality isn't necessarily as *consistent* as with Nikon or Canon. In other words, one Sigma 150-500 might be absolutely astounding, and someone else might get one that is completely subpar. But, having said that--I've only had ONE Sigma lens that I hated. It was a 75-300, but it was an older lens that I picked up for free when I bought an old Nikon film camera, so I can hardly complain. That thing had the image quality of a Coke bottle! Man, it was terrible.
My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is sharper and quicker to focus than my Nikon 50 f/1.8g was--and until I switched, I'd had absolutely NO complaints about my Nikon lens. My Tokina 100mm macro lens is probably my favorite lens, just astounding quality. But it's the ONLY Tokina lens I've owned, so I have no idea what the rest are like.

I haven't used a Tamron at all, but if the long wildlife lens they just announced is all it seems to be, and the price is the rumored $1500, I may just try them out.
My *next* lens purchase is probably going to be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8--I've heard really great things about it, and it's WAY less than the Nikon equivalent.

Basically, I've had almost nothing but good fortune with the third-party lenses so far--but my experience with them is still pretty limited, compared to some around here.
 
For the money you can't go wrong. I used this lens for a lot of high school sports on a D300. I would change to a Sigma 70-200 2.8 at dusk, sacrificing some reach for better low light performance. The main thing on not keeping this on camera as a walk-around lens was that 70mm is too high on a dx format. I also got the 28-300 but I feel this is not as sharp as the 70-300. As for third party lens, I have several Sigma's I like. I could see saving $1000 on a third party 70-200 2.8, but for the difference in the 70-300 I would go with Nikon.
 
I own one. I use it on my D3x or D2x when I want a lighter, smaller telephoto zoom lens than my 70-200/2.8. It's small enough to fit into a water bottle slot in this fanny pack I have, so it's easy to carry on hikes, or to the beach, or whatnot. I've shot a season's worth of youth soccer games on it. It's a decent lens. Refurbished ones are going for $349 or so. Good value at that price.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top