Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm?

kristiinae · May 1, 2017

Hi! Who here has the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR lens? How do you like it? Sample photos are welcome too. I'm considering purchasing this lens for outdoor shoots: horses, wildlife and nature, portraits maybe. It would fit nicely into my budget. I'd like to hear your opinions on this lens! Thanks!

fmw · May 1, 2017

To a some extent you get what you pay for with lenses. I had one of these for a day and was unimpressed. Note that I may be harder to impress than you are.

chuasam · May 1, 2017

it is an okay Wildlife lens. It would be not a good portrait lens at all.
Horses...well if they're not moving much and it's VERY bright...I guess

astroNikon · May 1, 2017

I had one 2-1/2 years ago. Glad I got rid of it ==> My observations of Nikon 70-300 VRII

Derrel · May 1, 2017

It is okay. Buy it USED!!!!! It is a good lens, but not a "great" lens....focusing is okay, it's handy and light and affordable on the used market. I used it quite a bit on 24-MP FX Nikon. It is weakest at the long end, and decent in the 70-240mm range. It might be better on a DX Nikon body--I am really not sure.

I think it is a good lens for portraiture/outdoor people shots.

Derrel · May 1, 2017

These pics are from one afternoon's shoot in very bright conditions, the first few were done by shooting against the light and using newly-poured, light-colored concrete as bounce fill lighting. Last two have some flash fill on-camera from SB-800 flash unit.

As I said earlier, ithe 70-300 AF-S VR is a good lens, but not a "great lens"....this is about as sharp as it gets in bright light at smaller f/stops on 24-Megapixel Nikon full-frame...the focal length range is okay for outdoor work. Whjat this lens lacks is the ability to really tnhrow backgrounds wayyy out of focus, as could be done with a faster-aperture lens like the 85/1.8 AF-S G, or the various f/2.8 lens lengths. Still...for a $300 or so used lens, it's a good value I think, as long as you are not expecting super-super crisp images at all lengths.

adamhiram · May 1, 2017

My comment from another thread this week:

adamhiram said:
I've found that the Nikon 70-300 VR is really only as good as your camera's autofocus. I suppose that's true of all lenses, but that was especially the case with this one for me. On my D5100, I didn't really like using it; even in good light, I wasn't able to track motion very well, and the focus would always hunt. When I switched to a D500 last year, suddenly this lens found new life. Autofocus was fast and accurate, and subject tracking was something I almost didn't have to think about with the right autofocus mode.

Ditto to what Darrel said - I've taken some decent portraits with mine, but you need a lot of room, and it does get a bit soft in the long end. As Darrel already said, this is one to buy used.

Dave442 · May 1, 2017

I have this lens. It is very good for travel and is part of my three lens travel bag. I have a number of portraits from it that I like and a bit of BIF and wildlife (on a DX body). When I go out past 200mm and it's not a portrait shot I will drop to f/8. At f/5.6 it is a bit softer at the longer end, but will also give a nice background blur.

Sure there are sharper lenses, but this is a cheap way to 300mm and something you can carry all day long. I bought new when it came out and it paid for itself very quickly. As noted above, it is now available at very good prices used.

A few images...

searching for food

Shadow on the run

Rooster profile

BMW Championship

Rambutan

Bird with worm

DGMPhotography · May 2, 2017

Definitely the most affordable reach you can get out of a Nikon lens. I have it, and while I'd definitely like to upgrade, it still gets the job done in the right conditions. Probably better on a full frame camera with better focusing and ISO.

kristiinae · May 2, 2017

Thanks for your replies! I'm just starting out so I can't really afford anything more expensive (there's no way I could buy the 70-200mm right now). From the reviews I've read, it's still better than the 55-200mm and 55-300m, right? Are there any other zooms you'd recommend which wouldn't break the bank (~400€)?

Braineack · May 2, 2017

chuasam said:
It would be not a good portrait lens at all.

why do you say this?

chuasam · May 2, 2017

Braineack said:
chuasam said:

It would be not a good portrait lens at all.

Click to expand...

why do you say this?

Minimum focusing distance isn't that good, isn't terribly fast, isn't very sharp. No nano crystal coating
85mm f/1.8G is the best budget portrait lens.
Best midrange is the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART.
Best high end is 105mm f/1.4 or the new Sigma 135mm f/1.8 ART.

greybeard · May 2, 2017

I got mine from Nikon Refurb for 269.00 and I use it all the time. It is descent from 70-200 or so. At 300mm I shoot it at f/10 and does OK.

chuasam · May 2, 2017

greybeard said:
I got my from Nikon Refurb for 269.00 and I use it all the time. It is descent from 70-200 or so. At 300mm I shoot it at f/10 and does OK.View attachment 139233

the budget 300mm f/4 PF

overall image

100% crop...
now that is considered Good

chuasam · May 2, 2017

to the OP,
the 70-300 is not a great lens but it is cheap.
you might even save more coin if you go with the 70-300 Sigma APO
alternatively, get the 50mm and a 35mm f/1.8G

SquarePeg · May 2, 2017

kristiinae said:
Thanks for your replies! I'm just starting out so I can't really afford anything more expensive (there's no way I could buy the 70-200mm right now). From the reviews I've read, it's still better than the 55-200mm and 55-300m, right? Are there any other zooms you'd recommend which wouldn't break the bank (~400€)?

I have the new Tamron 70-300 VC and I like it a lot. I've taken some great outdoor shots with it in good light.