Purchase Nikon's 70-300 mm lens?

BVS

heartyfisher said:

I have had an 18-200 in the past which I was very pleased with. (it died and I gave it to my brother who repaired it and he has been very happy with it too).. Now I use the 18-140 but I find I miss the extra reach that my 18-200 afforded. so the 18-300's have been on my radar including the 16-300 sigma. The only thing is I think I am a bit spoilt by the good IQ from the 18-140 and the awesome 70-200 F4 !! That's why I have been also keeping an eye on the new 70-300s and the new 100-400 sigma.

The 18-300 6.3 is a decent lens for what it is. It's the same size and nearly the same weight as the 18-140. Given the greater focal range, overall sharpness is a bit worse and AF speed is more leisurely than 18-140. However, it also has two major issues:

1. Price - When it was released it was $899 which felt WAY overpriced, even considering that it was $100 less than the 18-300 5.6. Now, it's come down a bit to $699 ($599 refurbished) which still feels high compared to the competition. Personally, I'd rather just complement my 18-140 with a 70-300 when needed for less money.

2. Focus Breathing - It has major focus breathing. At MFD there's basically no difference between 200mm and 300mm. Even at infinity, I felt that the difference between 200mm and 300mm was fairly underwhelming. Look at how close together the 200 and 300 marks are on the lens and you can begin to sense how small the difference is. So, your paying hundreds of extra dollars for an extra 100mm range that doesn't amount to much in the end.

I took some test shots at 200 and 300mm a few years back to compare the difference. I'll see if I can dig them up.

NSXTypeR

Wow, I didn't even know the 18-300 had 2 versions, one with 300mm at 5.6 and 6.3. Is there a difference in image quality? I assume so, as the 5.6 version is close to $1000 and the other is $700.

And the 6.3 version is surprisingly small too.

BVS

NSXTypeR said:

Wow, I didn't even know the 18-300 had 2 versions, one with 300mm at 5.6 and 6.3. Is there a difference in image quality? I assume so, as the 5.6 version is close to $1000 and the other is $700.

And the 6.3 version is surprisingly small too.

The 5.6 version is older, bigger, heavier, more expensive, and from what I've read optically flawed vs. the 6.3 version.

The 6.3 is kind of a like an 18-140 that had its barrel extended.

heartyfisher

yup what BVS said...

Also the 18-300 F6.3 is one of the most used lens with the D500 .. go figure... I cant see it myself .. so I am wondering if I am missing something.....

spraynpray

heartyfisher said:

yup what BVS said...

Also the 18-300 F6.3 is one of the most used lens with the D500 .. go figure... I cant see it myself .. so I am wondering if I am missing something.....

I doubt it. There are a lot of people out there who just buy what the nice salesman tells them (because he is an expert...).

Hiker

I've been following this post. Before my South America trip, a friend sold me his 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G lens for a price that was just to hard NOT to buy (Capt. Kirk or Picard couldn't get me to his house fast enough!). Does anyone know what version I have? And what do people think?

Photobug

Hiker said:

I've been following this post. Before my South America trip, a friend sold me his 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G lens for a price that was just to hard NOT to buy (Capt. Kirk or Picard couldn't get me to his house fast enough!). Does anyone know what version I have? And what do people think?

This is an easy question. Go to Ken Rockwell's web site and find the list of Nikon lens. You will be able to nail down which version by the description and serial number.

heartyfisher

Hiker said:

I've been following this post. Before my South America trip, a friend sold me his 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G lens for a price that was just to hard NOT to buy (Capt. Kirk or Picard couldn't get me to his house fast enough!). Does anyone know what version I have? And what do people think?

Unfortunately, that has the reputation as one of the worst Nikon lenses ever....

I have tested it myself... hmm.

Hiker

I bought it for $100. As I learned it's just not sharp from 250-300. Will look at other options.

NSXTypeR

Hiker said:

I've been following this post. Before my South America trip, a friend sold me his 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G lens for a price that was just to hard NOT to buy (Capt. Kirk or Picard couldn't get me to his house fast enough!). Does anyone know what version I have? And what do people think?

There's no need to check the serial numbers. Look on the side to see if there's a VR switch.

If it doesn't have VR, then it is the older, less desirable version of the 70-300.

Hiker

It has VR. It's not a bad lens, just not really sharp like others have said above 250mm. Which, thanks to you guys I started noticing! LOL

heartyfisher

$100 for the VR version is good :-)

BVS

Hiker said:

I bought it for $100. As I learned it's just not sharp from 250-300. Will look at other options.

Sadly, there's no 300mm option at the moment that strikes a perfect balance of size, price, and performance. Hopefully the future FX 70-300 AF-P will succeed in this regard.

FX 70-300 - Soft past 250mm like you said.
Tamron 70-300 - Similar to Nikon one.
DX 70-300 AF-P - Needs lots of light.
DX 55-300 - Weak performance.
DX 18-300 - Weak performance.
300 f/4 PF - Expensive.
300 f/4 D - Big and heavy.
200-500 - Big and heavy.
80-400 - Big, heavy, expensive.
Sigma 100-400 - Needs lots of light, some AF issues.

heartyfisher

I think the "DX 70-300 AF-P - Needs lots of light." is pretty close. but for the plastic mount and slight incompatibilities..

Sigh and the 2 "DX 18-300 - Weak performance." gets lumped together as they are often...

still definitely a place for the FX 70-300 FX AFP to slot in.

DaveyJ

I have tried the new 70-300 AF-P VR DX lens on our D500, a lot on the D7200, and if it is a good lens for anyone, I am surprised. We own two of them, bought them both with another D7200 from B&H and the just are not a lens that I find has much to offer. Again I can't use it on my D3200 now the only camera I would any longer use it on. What a contrast to the older 70-300 FX variable 4.5 to 5.6. To HeartyFisher, unfortunately I am not certain which 18-300 I did use. Theoretically it would be great to have such a catch all lens, Two versions were available. I just would not buy either one. However if I needed such a range I would not hesitate to buy one with a 30"day return policy. Hopefully Nikon will keep their current 70-300 FX 4.5-5.6 in production until the new stepper motor version has proven excellent. It sure better be better at 300mm than any they have done on this vital range lens!

KnockKnock

DaveyJ said:

if it is a good lens for anyone, I am surprised... not a lens that I find has much to offer.

Can you elaborate on why? What are the 2-3 major deficiencies?

thx

NSXTypeR

Yes, I'm also interested in your opinion on the AF-P 70-300.

BVS

heartyfisher said:

I think the "DX 70-300 AF-P - Needs lots of light." is pretty close.

To expand on the "needs lots of light" remark, in controlled situations - camera stabilized, stationary target, live view, ISO 100, blasting the target with my SB-700 flash, the lens was exceptionally sharp. At 85mm it was comparable to my 85mm f/1.8G set to the same aperture. At 140mm it was as sharp or sharper than my 18-140 at 140mm. At 200mm it was MUCH sharper than my old 55-200. I didn't have anything to compare it to at 300mm, but it seemed sharp there too.

However, in less controlled situations, walking around outside with it trying to shoot stuff, I had a heck of a time getting anything decent. Part of it could be my inexperience shooting longer focal lengths. Part of it seemed to be that the long light skinny nature of the lens made it tough to hold steady. And part of it seemed to be that in order to keep the shutter speed up at such a small aperture you've got to crank the ISO which heavily degrades picture quality.

I only had it for a weekend though. Part of me feels like I could do better the second time if I gave it another go and had more time to play with it.

spraynpray

Yes, it sounds like shake is your problem. The high shutter-speed effect of using flash along with the small aperture is an indication. If it were possible to open it up very wide, the motion would probably start to show again due to less light coming from the flash.

Monopod?

KnockKnock

Sounds like this is NOT the VR version, correct?

BVS

No, that was the VR version. The VR definitely helps, but the lens is long and light, so on a heavier DX body the center of gravity is near your hand, so any small twist of the wrist gets amplified into a significant jump at the end of the lens. I'm sure this could be improved with practice or a monopod or something though.

Beyond that, f/6.3+ and the high ISOs needed to maintain a decent shutter speed tended to kill the results.

KnockKnock

Okay - good to know, thanks for jotting down your experience!

DaveyJ

Very few people use the 70-300s as much as I do. My two new AF-P VR DX Nikkor lens now set in a case, after extensive testing. They are not much of a lens. I use the 70-300 Nikkor FX 4.5-5.6 lens almost everyday. I have tried the stepper motor AF-P VR 70-300 Nikkors on everything from stills to video and have yet to take a single photo that stands out as excellent. That is why they sit in a case and are no longer used. I loaned them to others to test, same results. Again, because I can't use them on my D3200 camera, the only one I would be comfortable using it on, both lens are a dead end street. Having used it on D500 and D7200 I cannot go any further with use of this lens. I figured the DX formula, new design, etc., lighter and wasn't turned off by the smaller aperature would be excellent but my resultant photos were in farming language, a total crop failure. Someday maybe I'll get a D3300 to use with these lens?

NSXTypeR

Thanks for your reviews of the AF-P lenses, those issues you guys mentioned along with the need for higher ISOs definitely put me off. Along with the VR incompatibilities with the D7000 made me choose the 70-300 AF-S VR FX by default. The D7000 is no bueno with high ISOs.

DaveyJ

The D7500 right now would be my first choice if I was just getting into DX DSLR. The D7200 is an awesome deal and is very close to the D7500 in all ways. The D500 I also use is heavier, and still probably one of the best cameras ever made! The fact that it has no flash can make it tougher to chose for some assignments. On just won't carry a speed light too, I have enough gear to carry. If I was doing more portraiture I might be more inclined to sppedlights.