Purchase Nikon's 70-300 mm lens?

egosbar

i would of preferred if the d500 had a flash but i carry two speedlites in my bag so its not a huge problem more a slight inconvenience if i just need to bump a bit of light to reduce some shadow

PB_PM

If the lenses are that bad, why not return them to the seller?

BabaGanoush

heartyfisher said:

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.

The worst Nikon lens of all time just has to be the 43-86mm F, which I owned. I've been digitizing my old film slides recently, and this lens defines image softness. None of the many slides I took with it are sharp. At the time I owned it, however, I was young and brand new to photography. I did not have a light table and I did not pixel peep; all I did was project my slides on a big screen. In those days I was just thrilled the slides were sufficiently in focus that I could recognize faces and places.

Update PS: That's the problem with Nikon glass. Nikon makes a lot of good lenses, some of which are truly excellent, but Nikon also makes a lot of pretty mediocre lenses that are nothing they can (or should) brag about. I'm getting more and more impressed with the Panasonic MFT lenses and the newest Sony GM lenses. I own quite a few of them and will be buying more for my mirrorless systems.

PB_PM

The MFT lenses look impressive, until you look at the uncorrected image. Photozone has some reviews that discuss this issue. MFT cameras all do in camera corrections as part of the RAW/jpeg file creation process. Before that in camera processing, even the expensive 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes have terrible vignetting, and CA compared to consumer grade Nikkors.

heartyfisher

"The worst Nikon lens of all time just has to be the 43-86mm F"

I think calling one of the first nikon zoom lense released in 1963 the worst is kind of unfair :-) it seems to me to be like saying Christopher columbus was a bad sailor cos he took so long(5 weeks) to cross the Atlantic :-) I mean any ol boat can cross in 2 weeks ! :-)

BVS

heartyfisher said:

"The worst Nikon lens of all time just has to be the 43-86mm F"

I think calling one of the first nikon zoom lense released in 1963 the worst is kind of unfair :-) it seems to me to be like saying Christopher columbus was a bad sailor cos he took so long(5 weeks) to cross the Atlantic :-) I mean any ol boat can cross in 2 weeks ! :-)

Actually, I think it's more like saying the Santa María was slow, which it was. Saying Columbus was a bad sailor is more like saying it's the photographer's fault. ;-)

heartyfisher

@BabaGanoush you may like this ....

Going from nikon to canon to sony to ...

BabaGanoush

heartyfisher said:

@BabaGanoush you may like this ....

Going from nikon to canon to sony to ...

I agree with what he says and share the same attitude about alternative camera systems. At my advanced age, I have more money than years left to do photography, so I am inclined to try as many new things as I can handle.

Over the years my path through camera systems went something like:

Miranda film --> Nikon film --> Almost two decades of no photography --> Canon digital --> Nikon digital --> + Panasonic mirrorless + Sony mirrorless

I like my Panasonic MFT kit for travel, which suffices as long as the shooting conditions are not very challenging. I like my Sony mirrorless for casual photography when I'm out mainly to be relaxed and have fun while snapping a shot or two at whim. I keep my Nikon gear for those times when I know the shooting conditions are going to be difficult, e.g., really poor lighting or bad weather. In fact, I have no intention of getting rid of my D7200; it's such an excellent camera, I plan to upgrade my kit with the newest 70-300mm plus the 1.4x TC. And that's even if (as seems likely) I buy a D850 to replace the D800 I once owned and then sold after three years shooting with it (I never seemed to be able to get around to pulling the trigger to buy a D810).

The way I look at it, the mental challenge of juggling three different camera systems at once keeps my brain active and delays the onset of dementia. I consider it therapy. It's a lot cheaper than nursing care.

BVS

Cameralabs has started reviewing the new 70-300 AF-P FX. It includes comparisons to the Nikon 70-300 AF-S, Nikon 80-400, and new Sigma 100-400.

https://cameralabs.com/nikon-af-p-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6e-ed-vr-review/

DaveyJ

Currently the new lens is $750 versus $500 at B&H, lots of light fall off and poor bokah, other than that maybe an improvement. As a owner of about seven leading up to this lens.....I see no reason to "upgrade"!

DaveyJ

My recent purchase, now thoroughly tested, of the Nikkor 200-500 has greatly limited my use of the 70-300 lens, but it is still a greatly needed bridge between the Roughly 70 or 80 mm lens at the long end of their zoom to say 200 to 300. The thing that this new lens fixes is the 300mm weak end, as did the AF-P DX VR 70-300 lens. Still the 70-300 Nikkor lens are my choice over the various lens, including the most over priced Nikon 80-400 which is far poorer a value than the 200-500!

heartyfisher

does any one know if the new fx 70-300 afp is compatible with Teleconverters ? TC14 tc17 tc20 ?

Hiker

Still looking for a replacement for the 70-300 G. Do I go 70-200mm f2.8? 70-200mm f4? Sigma 50-100mm f1.8?! Decisions decisions!! The Sigma will give me the crop equivalent of a FF 75-150mm closer to the 70-200. Sigh...

Jeff

Capt_Spaulding

@DaveyJ I've read some discontent with the AF compatibility of the new 70-300 with older bodies. I seem to recall the claim that the lens forgets where it was focused or some such. I'm interested in how well it works with the D7200. Knowing you have a 7200, what's your take?

BVS

Hiker said:

Still looking for a replacement for the 70-300 G. Do I go 70-200mm f2.8? 70-200mm f4? Sigma 50-100mm f1.8?! Decisions decisions!! The Sigma will give me the crop equivalent of a FF 75-150mm closer to the 70-200. Sigh...

Jeff

What's your use case, and what body would it be on?

Hiker

BVS said:

Hiker said:

Still looking for a replacement for the 70-300 G. Do I go 70-200mm f2.8? 70-200mm f4? Sigma 50-100mm f1.8?! Decisions decisions!! The Sigma will give me the crop equivalent of a FF 75-150mm closer to the 70-200. Sigh...

Jeff

What's your use case, and what body would it be on?

I have a D7200. You know everyone, well pretty much everyone, even my Canon friends say the next step in a lens choice would be a 70-200mm f2.8 (or f4). I would be shooting some landscapes, mostly Grand Canyon or mountains, some wildlife. Don't want to spring for a 200-500 or a 150-600 since I feel I would be wasting my money on something that just sits and not used that much. I'm not planning on going FF anytime soon. MAYBE in 5 years or so. And that's a big maybe.

NSXTypeR

Capt_Spaulding said:

@DaveyJ I've read some discontent with the AF compatibility of the new 70-300 with older bodies. I seem to recall the claim that the lens forgets where it was focused or some such. I'm interested in how well it works with the D7200. Knowing you have a 7200, what's your take?

This kind of rigamarole kind of pisses me off about Nikon. It's not the first time they've done this sort of thing, the 70-300 AF-P DX had similar issues with not being able to turn off VR on older bodies. If your camera body is older than 10 years old, I can see that as less of a concern. But with a camera as new as a D7200, that isn't going to cut it. Heck, I use a D7000 and I shouldn't be expected to buy a new camera body just to consider a new lens. That's absurd that if I expect fully compatibility I'm limited to the old 70-300 VR FX or else be forced to buy a new lens. Plus they try and mess with 3rd party lens makers like Tamron and Sigma compatibility as well with VR and AF.

Hiker said:

I have a D7200. You know everyone, well pretty much everyone, even my Canon friends say the next step in a lens choice would be a 70-200mm f2.8 (or f4). I would be shooting some landscapes, mostly Grand Canyon or mountains, some wildlife. Don't want to spring for a 200-500 or a 150-600 since I feel I would be wasting my money on something that just sits and not used that much. I'm not planning on going FF anytime soon. MAYBE in 5 years or so. And that's a big maybe.

Just curious, what's your reasoning behind not buying or wanting a FX big zoom/telephoto? Just because it's FX doesn't mean it's not usable on a DX camera. If you happen to upgrade to FX you'll be set.

DaveyJ

I owned the 70-200 Nikkor 2.8 and sold it. The current DX 70-300 AF-P DX VR is pretty good. I have two of those, as well as very 70-300 Nikon ever made. A very useful range. If I ever got a 70-200 Nikkor agin it would have to be the f4, as the 2.8 gives me NOTHING. Although by the way it is a very good lens, since I always shoot stopped down and my ability to see in low light is much better than most people, that is why I would WANT the f4! My results with the Nikon 200-500 was the big eye opener! That is a totally awesome lens, but it is big! To me well worth the weight and at $1,400 roughly, I think Nikon's single best buy.

On the D7200 focus with the 70-300 AF-P DX VR is fast, and it is good to 300mm. Same conclusion on the new 70-300 AF-P FX VR, but I just tried that.....I did not buy it. If you want light, the 70-300mm AF-P DX VR is pretty good. I do have trouble with that lens in low light, and the 200-500 Nikkor handles low ligh much better with the D7200. One of my best friends just bought the D7200 and says it will be all the camera he ever needs. I do admit though I also bought a D7500 right after the 200-500 and feel that camera is far faster and more intuitive for me! I by the way got a pretty good price when I bought two 70-300s at the same time, and of the 70-300s out there that is probably what I would get. Then I would try to quick get the 200-500 as personally I can not get by without that lens, it is just that good. Each day I use it though I think is is a good thing I work physically on demanding work on the farms, and it makes a heavy weight rig more normal for me. But I do think that the day you just take that rig, you'll find stuff that a wider zoom lens is the ticket. Hence, the D7200 with say the 16-80, so two cameras in tow!

Ton14

As everybody know the 70-300mm is actualy a 70-250mm because the last 50mm are useless due to the image quality. The VR version I have used from the D70 till now and is quite good on a DX (D7200). On the D600 the full potential came out because it is a FF lens, but still the softness at the end. If the 70-300 AF-P FX VR does not have that softness at the last 50mm, it is mine. Then I have a 105-450 on my D7200 and even (the cheapest and great) 600mm in 1.3x mode, 4800 x 3200, usable in most of my cases, instead of 6000 x 4000.

PS. I sold my super lens 70-200mm f/2.8mm VR II, because it became too heavy for me. Bougt the F4 version, which I can carry around all day, clipped on my beld (not around my neck). No regret at all, get the same IQ. I miss one stop, so I set the native ISO on 200 instead of 100 for dayly use and the F4 collect enough light in most dark situations. I often stop if the ISO becomes higher then 3200, sometimes 6400. In daylight 3200 is enough for speed. 100 ISO in the studio, no problem at all.

Hiker

NSXTypeR said:

Capt_Spaulding said:

@DaveyJ I've read some discontent with the AF compatibility of the new 70-300 with older bodies. I seem to recall the claim that the lens forgets where it was focused or some such. I'm interested in how well it works with the D7200. Knowing you have a 7200, what's your take?

This kind of rigamarole kind of pisses me off about Nikon. It's not the first time they've done this sort of thing, the 70-300 AF-P DX had similar issues with not being able to turn off VR on older bodies. If your camera body is older than 10 years old, I can see that as less of a concern. But with a camera as new as a D7200, that isn't going to cut it. Heck, I use a D7000 and I shouldn't be expected to buy a new camera body just to consider a new lens. That's absurd that if I expect fully compatibility I'm limited to the old 70-300 VR FX or else be forced to buy a new lens. Plus they try and mess with 3rd party lens makers like Tamron and Sigma compatibility as well with VR and AF.

Hiker said:

I have a D7200. You know everyone, well pretty much everyone, even my Canon friends say the next step in a lens choice would be a 70-200mm f2.8 (or f4). I would be shooting some landscapes, mostly Grand Canyon or mountains, some wildlife. Don't want to spring for a 200-500 or a 150-600 since I feel I would be wasting my money on something that just sits and not used that much. I'm not planning on going FF anytime soon. MAYBE in 5 years or so. And that's a big maybe.

Just curious, what's your reasoning behind not buying or wanting a FX big zoom/telephoto? Just because it's FX doesn't mean it's not usable on a DX camera. If you happen to upgrade to FX you'll be set.

My comment about FX was in regards to cameras. Then of course If I decided to upgrade to FF I would then get a few lenses I would use the most, like a 24-70/105, etc. I, like others have to save my penny's and quarters to buy new equipment. I'm even waiting to spend my $20. from B & H when I bought my 7200 on a good deal of the day!!!

I don't want to spend my money on something like a super zoom lens that won't be used that much. If I need a super zoom I can always rent. Like when I hopefully go to Patagonia in 2019 to shoot the South American Puma. Then I will most likely get a 150-600mm with a teleconverter. But for what I have around here wildlife wise in AZ, a up to 400mm zoom would be a good fit. Most wildlife I can get close to here. Pronghorn, Elk, sometimes Deer if I see one.

My 70-300mm G lens is nice, especially since I bought it from a friend for $100. 2 years ago. But like others have stated, it's lacking above 250mm in sharpness no matter how you stop it down. The newer version is interesting because of the focal length and the reported sharpness across the board. Unlike the Sigma 100-400. Read the reviews on both and the new Nikon is sharper. What's the perfect zoom lens? Good question!! I like the Nikon 80-400 but that price is just overwhelming!!

DaveyJ

I have used the new Nikon 80-400 a fair amount, I bought the 200-500 thinking it was a far better deal, now I know that was right! If,the Nikon 80-400 was sixty percent of the current price I would have maybe actually bought it. I did realize,though I personally needed out to 500 or more. I came pretty close to getting the Tamron 150-600 G2 but as a close friend has one, I decided after reading all of the reviews to get the Nikon super telephoto. I am delighted with the results!

Hiker

DaveyJ said:

I have used the new Nikon 80-400 a fair amount, I bought the 200-500 thinking it was a far better deal, now I know that was right! If,the Nikon 80-400 was sixty percent of the current price I would have maybe actually bought it. I did realize,though I personally needed out to 500 or more. I came pretty close to getting the Tamron 150-600 G2 but as a close friend has one, I decided after reading all of the reviews to get the Nikon super telephoto. I am delighted with the results!

While the 200-500 would have been the lens of choice, with a TC if i went to the Himalayas to shoot the Snow Leopard, I don't think it will work IF I went to Patagonia to shoot the Puma. But that's going on how close my friends were to the Puma the last time. Africa? Another possibility with the 200-500. But I read somewhere that a guy had a long lens on and missed shots because he was to close. My friend also just got back from the Amazon. He saw and photographed FOUR mating Jaguars! And he, for the first time saw and photographed a Jaguar killing a Caiman. I think he shoots with a Canon 7D MKII, but lens wise, not sure. For the Snow Leopard I know they shot with a 800mm f5.6 and a TC. And they were only 1/2 mile away! LOL. I'm keeping my options open at this time. I do have some time, but not much money!

Hiker

So DaveyJ, what 70-300 lens do you recommend? I of course have the G version. Which as many have stated is no useful above 250mm.

DaveyJ

If you are using FX
I'd probably go with the new 70-300 AF-P,Nikkor. If DX
I'd think the fairly new 70-300 is acceptable. OK to 300mm. But now that I have a lot of wildlife long shots with the Nikon 200-500 that is my single most important wildlife lens, nothing else close. Just make sure you are also carrying a second DX camera with 70-about 200? I now am using D7500 on 200-500 with totally amazing results, and the D7200 with the 16-80 and ocassionally switch to use the New AF-P DX 70-300. At say 200mm and up the 200-500 is decidedly the ticket. Best wildlife glass I have ever Seen! The combination of D7500 and 200-500 is lightning fast, equally as good in stills and video! I do switch from A Priority,for stills usually at f9-11, then swiftly to M in video. With the D7500 this switch is so fast and accurate it is amazing. For your target, having shot Mountain Lion images for several years this is a great rig, I now refer to this as my Yellowstone Glass.

Hiker

DaveyJ said:

If you are using FX
I'd probably go with the new 70-300 AF-P,Nikkor. If DX
I'd think the fairly new 70-300 is acceptable. OK to 300mm. But now that I have a lot of wildlife long shots with the Nikon 200-500 that is my single most important wildlife lens, nothing else close. Just make sure you are also carrying a second DX camera with 70-about 200? I now am using D7500 on 200-500 with totally amazing results, and the D7200 with the 16-80 and ocassionally switch to use the New AF-P DX 70-300. At say 200mm and up the 200-500 is decidedly the ticket. Best wildlife glass I have ever Seen! The combination of D7500 and 200-500 is lightning fast, equally as good in stills and video! I do switch from A Priority,for stills usually at f9-11, then swiftly to M in video. With the D7500 this switch is so fast and accurate it is amazing. For your target, having shot Mountain Lion images for several years this is a great rig, I now refer to this as my Yellowstone Glass.

I have a D7200, and as a "backup" a D3300. I toyed with going FX with a 750 but the costs were overwhelming at the time, still are! Don't see me taking the 3300 out of the box it's in since the 7200 is amazing. Waiting for the right time to buy, like a B & H "deal of the day". That's how I talked the wife into the Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 for $450. last year!! Saving for the right lens to replace the G version of the 70-300. If I replace the G version with another I'll just sell it to a local camera store.