Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm?

[DGMPhotography]

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

what in the....

 

[Braineack]

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.

1. you shouldnt be standing close for portraits
2. you dont need a fast lens for portraits
3. it's plenty sharp for portraits (case and point)
4. you dont need nano crystal coating for portraits
5. agreed
6-7. subjective.


it wouldnt be my lens of choice, but it would do the job just fine. if you cant make that lens work for portraits then you have other issues.

 

[nerwin]

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.

1. you shouldnt be standing close for portraits
2. you dont need a fast lens for portraits
3. it's plenty sharp for portraits (case and point)
4. you dont need nano crystal coating for portraits
5. agreed
6-7. subjective.


it wouldnt be my lens of choice, but it would do the job just fine. if you cant make that lens work for portraits then you have other issues.

But you do NEED a gold ring for portraits.

 

[nerwin]

To the OP.

I owned the 70-300 VR for many years and I was quite happy with it. When you stop it down to around f/8, its pretty sharp from 70-200 but at 300mm is not very good. Can you get usable images? Absolutely. But you gotta keep in mind that when this lens was introduced, most Nikon DSLRs were around 12mp, not 24mp or more. Having higher resolution sensors today, the imperfections of the lens is just noticed more. But even so, the lens is still pretty good for what it is. I'd wouldn't bother buying it new at this point, Nikon really needs to revamp this lens.

 

[pixmedic12 11]

not sure why so many people are down on this lens.
it was part of a "kit lens" package when the D90 was introduced along with the 18-105.
its an entry level lens. maybe even a smidge above entry level IMO.
its small, light, and has a great focal range, and it's an FX lens. you can get the VRII for around $300 used if you hunt around a bit.
want better?
for a little more you can get an older Nikkor 300mm f4 AF, but for VR you are going to have to shell out a LOT more money and you won't have anything but 300mm.
for a little more than that you could hunt down an older 70-200 f/2.8, maybe in sigma or tokina...you might even find a deal on a tamron non-VR.
look for an older Tokina at-x pro 80-200 f2.8 lens. I had one and thought it was very good. can be found around $400 or so.

of course, all of these alternatives in a similar price bracket will rely on your camera having a built-in focus motor.
if you have a Nikon camera that does NOT have a built-in focus motor...prepare to spend the big bucks to get an af-s or G version in order to use autofocus.

for the money, it really is a decent lens. sure, for around the same money you could get better glass...$300+ will get you an 85mm f1.8D, or a 50mm f1.4D, or a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, or a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, or a 300mm f4 AF....but nothing that will autofocus on a Nikon body that doesn't have its own focus motor.

I had the 70-300 VRII lens and thought it was a pretty good lens. Used to use mine at the dog park because of the range and VR.
if your primary concern is having something for outdoors where you will have plenty of room, AND you have a camera with a built in motor, I had a nikkor 300mm f4 AF lens and loved it. picked it up at a local camera store for $300 in mint condition.

 

[coreno]

Wow, seems like a lot of knocks on this lens... I think it's a great lens