Purchase Nikon's 70-300 mm lens?

1910111315

Comments

  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    I sort of regret getting the old 70-300 FX now...
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    NSXTypeR said:

    I sort of regret getting the old 70-300 FX now...

    I've owned the old 70-300 FX for a long time. Bought it with my first Nikon DSLR, the D7000. I've taken a lot of pleasing pictures with it and have no regrets by having bought it. Over time, my standards have changed and the technology has improved, so I'm giving serious thought to upgrading to the new 70-300 FX. The only thing holding me back is the uncertainty over what Nikon's mirrorless camera will be like. If it's done well, I'd prefer to go all in on that instead of upgrading my DSLR kit.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member

    NSXTypeR said:

    I sort of regret getting the old 70-300 FX now...

    I've owned the old 70-300 FX for a long time. Bought it with my first Nikon DSLR, the D7000. I've taken a lot of pleasing pictures with it and have no regrets by having bought it. Over time, my standards have changed and the technology has improved, so I'm giving serious thought to upgrading to the new 70-300 FX. The only thing holding me back is the uncertainty over what Nikon's mirrorless camera will be like. If it's done well, I'd prefer to go all in on that instead of upgrading my DSLR kit.
    Oh yes, I do enjoy some of the photos I've taken with it. I've also realized that although I like the output from the lens, I also don't want anything even larger than the 70-300 VR as it stands. So although the idea of getting 70-200 F4 or even F2.8 is in my mind, I have a feeling I'd never take it out as it's far too bulky and heavy for me.

    Just Before Dawn

    That being said, even though it's not technically the best performing lens available, I did enjoy the photos I took with it, even if it wasn't the sharpest.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Mine was pretty sharp below 240mm stopped down one stop, it's just that I don't want a 300mm lens that is only a 240mm. If the length is there, you use it then get disappointed.
    Always learning.
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    The FX 70-300 AF-P is a good lens. I would save up and get it over the G. It's sharper than the G from at least 100mm onward, it'll AF faster, and be better for video. I think the only reason to get the G is if you're using a really old body that's not compatible with AF-P.

    The Sigma and Tamron 100-400s are very sharp as well and offer additional range, although they're bigger, don't go as wide, and have slightly slower apertures, even at equivalent focal lengths.

    However, If you're just going to use it at 300mm all the time I would also take a hard look at the 300PF. If you're not shooting at or near base ISO most of the time the faster aperture can provide significant IQ gains.

    You can see the sharpness difference between the new and old 70-300s (as well as the Sigma 100-400 and Nikon 80-400) here:

    https://cameralabs.com/nikon-af-p-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6e-ed-vr-review/2/

    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    edited June 2018
    BVS said:

    The FX 70-300 AF-P is a good lens. I would save up and get it over the G. It's sharper than the G from at least 100mm onward, it'll AF faster, and be better for video. I think the only reason to get the G is if you're using a really old body that's not compatible with AF-P.

    The Sigma and Tamron 100-400s are very sharp as well and offer additional range, although they're bigger, don't go as wide, and have slightly slower apertures, even at equivalent focal lengths.

    However, If you're just going to use it at 300mm all the time I would also take a hard look at the 300PF. If you're not shooting at or near base ISO most of the time the faster aperture can provide significant IQ gains.

    You can see the sharpness difference between the new and old 70-300s (as well as the Sigma 100-400 and Nikon 80-400) here:

    https://cameralabs.com/nikon-af-p-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6e-ed-vr-review/2/

    I'm in no hurry to upgrade, as I think the AF-P 70-300 isn't fully compatible with the D7000. I can't turn off VR. Plus it hurts to plunk down another $800+ for a lens I bought for $800 last year. I'm kind of annoyed Nikon is releasing lenses that aren't fully compatible with fairly recent cameras.
    Post edited by NSXTypeR on
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    NSXTypeR said:

    I'm in no hurry to upgrade, as I think the AF-P 70-300 isn't fully compatible with the D7000. I can't turn off VR. Plus it hurts to plunk down another $800+ for a lens I bought for $800 last year. I'm kind of annoyed Nikon is releasing lenses that aren't fully compatible with fairly recent cameras.

    The FX version has a VR switch, so turning VR on/off is possible. The only issue it'll have with the D7000 is that it'll reset focus when the meter times out. You can somewhat work around that by making the timeout duration longer. D7100 and later got a firmware update to fix this issue and are fully compatible.

    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,881Member
    edited June 2018
    NSXTypeR said:

    BVS said:

    The FX 70-300 AF-P is a good lens. I would save up and get it over the G. It's sharper than the G from at least 100mm onward, it'll AF faster, and be better for video. I think the only reason to get the G is if you're using a really old body that's not compatible with AF-P.

    The Sigma and Tamron 100-400s are very sharp as well and offer additional range, although they're bigger, don't go as wide, and have slightly slower apertures, even at equivalent focal lengths.

    However, If you're just going to use it at 300mm all the time I would also take a hard look at the 300PF. If you're not shooting at or near base ISO most of the time the faster aperture can provide significant IQ gains.

    You can see the sharpness difference between the new and old 70-300s (as well as the Sigma 100-400 and Nikon 80-400) here:

    https://cameralabs.com/nikon-af-p-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6e-ed-vr-review/2/

    I'm in no hurry to upgrade, as I think the AF-P 70-300 isn't fully compatible with the D7000. I can't turn off VR. Plus it hurts to plunk down another $800+ for a lens I bought for $800 last year. I'm kind of annoyed Nikon is releasing lenses that aren't fully compatible with fairly recent cameras.
    You can also get a white box or refurb DX version for under $200. EDIT: but I don't think the DX version works with the D7000. Oops.
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    mhedges said:

    You can also get a white box or refurb DX version for under $200. EDIT: but I don't think the DX version works with the D7000. Oops.

    A white box one would be the non-VR version since the VR version is never sold in kits. A refurb VR version goes for around $250, but it doesn't have a VR switch like the FX version, so back to square one.

    Honestly though, I rented the DX VR version twice and was never happy with it on my D7100. Too many compromises and too hard to get acceptable results. The price of the FX version does seem a little high, but I felt much more confident shooting with it. Refurb ones are currently available for $650 from Nikon USA.

    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,881Member
    BVS said:

    mhedges said:

    You can also get a white box or refurb DX version for under $200. EDIT: but I don't think the DX version works with the D7000. Oops.

    A white box one would be the non-VR version since the VR version is never sold in kits. A refurb VR version goes for around $250, but it doesn't have a VR switch like the FX version, so back to square one.

    Honestly though, I rented the DX VR version twice and was never happy with it on my D7100. Too many compromises and too hard to get acceptable results. The price of the FX version does seem a little high, but I felt much more confident shooting with it. Refurb ones are currently available for $650 from Nikon USA.


    Hmm well I did get the VR version in a white box off ebay for $188. Not sure what the deal was with it. Gray market, maybe?

    As I said, I haven’t used it that much. I’m going to try to use it some more in the next week or so.
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 398Member
    BVS said:

    Too many compromises and too hard to get acceptable results.

    I've got a D7100 and am eyeing the AF-P DX version myself. Can you elaborate on the compromises you ran into? What were the most annoying things? THANKS!
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    BVS said:

    mhedges said:

    You can also get a white box or refurb DX version for under $200. EDIT: but I don't think the DX version works with the D7000. Oops.

    A white box one would be the non-VR version since the VR version is never sold in kits. A refurb VR version goes for around $250, but it doesn't have a VR switch like the FX version, so back to square one.

    Honestly though, I rented the DX VR version twice and was never happy with it on my D7100. Too many compromises and too hard to get acceptable results. The price of the FX version does seem a little high, but I felt much more confident shooting with it. Refurb ones are currently available for $650 from Nikon USA.

    Yes, I've heard compatibility is not great with the 70-300 AF-P and older cameras, and I'd be running a big risk of buying a lens that just doesn't play nice with older hardware.

    I'd be curious about the 70-300 AF-P FX version if anyone's tried it on the D7000.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    " I'm giving serious thought to upgrading to the new 70-300 FX. The only thing holding me back is the uncertainty over what Nikon's mirrorless camera will be like. If it's done well, I'd prefer to go all in on that instead of upgrading my DSLR kit."

    That's what I wrote 2 days ago. Today, however, eBay was running a one-day 15%-off sale and with sales tax on Internet sales in the offing, I pulled the trigger and bought the 70-300mm AF-P FX lens for my D7200. The savings of $130 pushed me over the edge. Shush! No one tell my wife.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    edited June 2018
    mhedges said:



    You can also get a white box or refurb DX version for under $200. EDIT: but I don't think the DX version works with the D7000. Oops.

    Yes, if possible I would like full compatibility. Kind of a dealbreaker there.
    Post edited by NSXTypeR on
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,881Member
    Yeah I'm tempted. Could sell my DX for ~150 or so. And then I would have another FX lens if I decide to go FF.

    I've been trying the DX over the last couple days for close ups and can't say that I'm super happy with the results. I'm not getting real sharp images. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the lens itself vs. the fact that DOF is practically nonexistent shooting at 300mm close up.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    It is a lot to do with that also you are using a lens that isn't designed to be used close up and the 24mp DX needs a steady hand. Given a good macro lens held still you will get fabulous results with a DX. Better than FX without doubt.
    Always learning.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    mhedges said:

    Yeah I'm tempted. Could sell my DX for ~150 or so. And then I would have another FX lens if I decide to go FF.

    I've been trying the DX over the last couple days for close ups and can't say that I'm super happy with the results. I'm not getting real sharp images. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the lens itself vs. the fact that DOF is practically nonexistent shooting at 300mm close up.

    DOF is tough in macro in general, no matter what sort of lens you use. DOF is even tougher with dedicated macro lenses.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    mhedges said:

    Yeah I'm tempted. Could sell my DX for ~150 or so. And then I would have another FX lens if I decide to go FF.

    I've been trying the DX over the last couple days for close ups and can't say that I'm super happy with the results. I'm not getting real sharp images. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the lens itself vs. the fact that DOF is practically nonexistent shooting at 300mm close up.

    What lens are you using?
    Always learning.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,881Member

    mhedges said:

    Yeah I'm tempted. Could sell my DX for ~150 or so. And then I would have another FX lens if I decide to go FF.

    I've been trying the DX over the last couple days for close ups and can't say that I'm super happy with the results. I'm not getting real sharp images. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the lens itself vs. the fact that DOF is practically nonexistent shooting at 300mm close up.

    What lens are you using?
    It was the 70-300 AF-P VR DX. I’ve used it some more the last couple of days and it seems reasonable. At least, I don’t see a reason to spend $$ to replace it, given that I don’t use it much.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Well, you will never get the results you would get from a Nikon macro lens, but if you aren't after the tiniest detail to print large, it will do you a turn OK.
    Always learning.
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    I have just received my new AF-P 70-300mmE FX lens, which will replace my older G VR version. So far I am very pleased. The AF is proving to be fast, smooth, quiet, and accurate. And, for the first time ever for me, it requires no micro adjustment value to fine tune it. I'll take it for a spin this coming next week to see how it performs in real world photography, not just in tests.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member

    I have just received my new AF-P 70-300mmE FX lens, which will replace my older G VR version. So far I am very pleased. The AF is proving to be fast, smooth, quiet, and accurate. And, for the first time ever for me, it requires no micro adjustment value to fine tune it. I'll take it for a spin this coming next week to see how it performs in real world photography, not just in tests.

    Just curious, which camera body are you using it on?
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    NSXTypeR said:

    I have just received my new AF-P 70-300mmE FX lens, which will replace my older G VR version. So far I am very pleased. The AF is proving to be fast, smooth, quiet, and accurate. And, for the first time ever for me, it requires no micro adjustment value to fine tune it. I'll take it for a spin this coming next week to see how it performs in real world photography, not just in tests.

    Just curious, which camera body are you using it on?
    D7200
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    edited July 2018
    I took my new 70-300mm AF-P lens out today for a quick test run. I was shooting with my D7200. I shot the same scene using the same settings for the AF-P and also my older 70-300mmG AF-S lens, which I brought along for comparison. I've used the same scene to test other cameras and lenses, most recently my Sony A6300 with the Sony 18-135mm kit lens. I shot a row of buildings along the waterfront that were around 400 m from where I was standing on the opposite shore, i.e., essentially "at infinity."

    The AF-P is definitely sharper on-axis than the AF-S throughout their focal length range, especially at the longer focal lengths, and it is noticeably sharper almost out to the very edge of the field of view. The AF-P autofocuses a lot faster and a lot more quietly than the AF-S version of the lens.

    On the other hand, I was surprised that both lenses occasionally failed to achieve focus where my camera was pointed. This wasn't a case of missing focus by just a little; it was all blur and no focus at all. I've never experienced that kind of focus failure with my D7200 before. To achieve focus, I had to move my AF point to a different line of sight that offered greater contrast so the AF system could lock on. The reason I mention this is that my Sony A6300 focussed flawlessly on the exact same scene (at the same local lengths) when I tested the 18-135mm lens only a few weeks ago. I'm planning to do more focus tests of the D7200 + AF-P lens later this week, but I am convinced it is not a specific failure of the lens itself.

    PS: I've been using firmware version 1.03, which includes the update for the AF-P lens.
    Post edited by BabaGanoush on
Sign In or Register to comment.