Customer Reviews

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Nikkor SLR Camera Lens

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I used this lens for about a year with both film and digital. In general, it's a decent lens for the price. Even though it's ED (extralow dispersion), I do get purple fringing on high-contrast subjects at long (telephoto) zoom. Since I do wild bird photography, this would show up as purplish bird beaks and twigs against a bright sky. Annoying. On the other hand, it has produced some excellent portraits and even wildlife photos where contrast wasn't excessive.
Doing a side-by-side test w/ the help of a camera store and a D70, I compared this lens to both 80-400/5.6 VR (nikon) and Tamron 200-500/6.3. All three were "good", but the Nikon VR was sharpest (Tamron roughly similar to ED), and also lost the least contrast (Tamron somewhere in the middle, ED worst), and the ED and Tamron lenses both appeared to kill color very slightly (not a big deal). Only the ED showed purple fringe w/ high contrast.
But although the 70-300 ED wasn't stellar in these tests, I still prefer it for backpacking due to the low weight and size (and robustness), and I rely on the 80-400 VR for serious wildlife photography where I can tolerate the weight/size in exchange for image stabilization and sharp optics.

First, I'm giving this 70-300mm lens a 5 stars rating partly because the price is quite attractive especially the used ones (the G version of the lens is even more cheaper and picture quality isn't too much different with this ED glass version in my opinion).

If your primary objective is to take pictures in low light situation such as wedding and concert, then get the 80-200mm f/2.8 or the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 instead.

Get this lens (or it's cheaper brother the 70-300mm G) by any means unless you already have those alternative and more expensive zoom lenses that I mentioned above.

Pros:
1. Inexpensive (with the VR version is released, many will sell this one)
2. You can get up close and personal (300mm which is equivalent to 450mm if you attach it to a DSLR)
3. Very sharp and fast in bright light situation (outdoor etc), though it gets a bit softer as you get closer to the 300mm
4. Very light
5. Bokeh is suprisingly good
6. Great for portrait
7. ED glass for better contrast and picture quality
8. Metal mount

Cons:
1. Though more solid build than the 70-300mm G version, the external part of this lens is still made from plastic. (but I don't think you should care on this)
2. Very bad on low light situation especially if the object is moving/sports photography, but still works fine for long exposure with tripod like photographing fireworks or night light building/city/car lights.
3. Focus seems to be slower on low light situation (focus hunting a bit more)

Bottom line: this lens loves a lot of light.

If you give this lens a lot of light, it will take good care of you.

Last but not least, after you get this lens, go and buy the nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D prime lens for $100 or less (equivalent of 75mm if used with DSLR which is very good for portrait and semi-zoom). This is a very fast lens and works extremly well in low light situation even without using flash. This lens will complement your 70-300mm ED lens very very well.

Also check out the 70-300mm G (half the price of ED) and the 70-300mm VR (released Oct 2006). VR feature works really well on static object. If the obect is moving then you will be better off with fast lens like the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, 80-200mm f/2.8 AF or the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 AF-S

Happy photographing!

Sidarta Tanu

One thing about the otherwise excellent stock lens that comes with the D70 package is that the telephoto is not really very telephoto. At 70 mm you are just about at life size so you don't get much pull for distance, and if you're taking people pictures, you want something that will enhance faces more, and give you more flexibility when shooting things farther away. This is your lens. The picture quality is excellent and it picks up where the stock lens leaves off, so in combination with the two lenses, you're going from an 18mm to 300mm. Picture quality is excellent, what you'd expect in a Nikon lens in this price range. Cons: it's a large heavier lens, not even including the lens hood, and at f/4-5.6, you really need a good quantity of light for it. But if you're looking for a lens that will give you the magnification you find missing in the stock lens, then this is it. The price is very good for the quality you're getting.

basically, the 70-300 ED is the perfect complement to the 18-70 kit lens for the nikon d series. it's worth having because of the 1.5 mag factor which means it's actually a 105-450mm, which gives you plenty of reach. add a teleconverter and you can get to 900mm (!). general consensus is it's also better than the 70-300 G lens, although if you're on a budget or don't plan on using telephoto that much, the extra $250 might be better spent elsewhere (like the 50mm 1.8 prime and/or a flash). this is a mid-level nikon lens with ED glass and decent build quality--not cheap, but not tank-like either. the lens extends way out at 300 mm, and you have to twist the manual focus ring (which is a bit stiff) to get it to fully retract. the plastic lens hood is big and has a cheap feel (not lined with velvet like tokina), but reverses for carrying around.

still, it's nice and sharp with good bokeh and a reasonable value--if you want better bokeh, go for a long prime. no macro capability like the cheaper sigma APO variant but sometimes lenses are better if you don't ask them to do too much.

optical quality is pretty consistent through the entire zoom range, which is a good thing; definitely a nice piece of glass, although not a head-turner. it's not a quick lens at 4-5.6, but what did you expect for $400? a 2.8? yeah right.

with a steady grip, it's usable handheld out to 200mm; beyond that shake is noticeable. the rubber grip ring balances nicely on objects without worrying about scratching the finish for braced shots. if you plan on using it handheld fully extended, consider the VR version, although you'll still want a tripod for longer exposures. 70mm is a bit tight on the wide end, but passable for portraits. for a non-macro, it lets you get reasonably close with a shallow depth of field. no noticable lens creep. not super lightweight, but not too heavy either. doesn't take up much more room in the bag then the 18-70. middle-of-the road in most categories, except for optical performance, which is above average. good for nature or wildlife w/tripod, or for law-enforcement/private detectives, handheld "stakeout" surveillance shots (which don't require perfect clarity). if you plan on using it for sports or action in low light, good luck -- use a speedlight and a tripod/monopod, set up at a spot, lock focus, and wait for subject to come into view. wouldn't recommend it for tracking quick-moving objects beyond 200mm.

the 70-300 ED is super-sharp stopped down to 5.6-8, beyond that performance didn't really improve; the images just got a bit more resonant. bottom line, you can get some nice long shots with this lens, which should be good enough for casual enthusiasts and prosumers. it's not a pro lens, but then again, it doesn't cost what a pro lens does. you might be able to find it used for a fraction of the price, but it might be worth it to get the warranty.

Picked mine up used on eBay for $180. With the growth of the VR market everyone is dumping there old lenses. You can get a used one for a great price. This lens is great for the serious amatuer.

I have taken some incredible pictures with this lens. The autofocus is a little slow and I have heard people complain about softness on the high end but I have a photo blown up to 20 x 17 taken from my D70 at 300mm. Of course I shoot the photo on a tripod.... I have not experienced the softness

I almost did not buy this lens, influenced by the numerous negative reviews about it on the net. Fortunately for me, I opted not to listen to pixel-pickers, those who believe that a marginally "sharper" lens may make them better at photography, only to discover (to their dismay) that their images are not improving in correlation to their monetary outlay. Pixel-pickers waste their time pixel-picking, while photography artists spend their time creating images, making the best of their imagination and fascination with art, busy learning and discovering something new every day in the playful game of light with shadow. This is my first zoom lens, as I come from a background of excellent prime lenses, some numbered among the very best in the Nikkor range. Among them, legendary 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135mm - all fine, sharp lenses. I am accustomed and expect top quality images from my lenses. Even so, I am definitely not a pixel-picker - pixel-picking is relevant to lens designers, to improve lens design, not to photographic artists. I decided to try a broad-range zoom purely for convenience, expecting reduced quality from a zoom by definition, and therefore prepared to make only a rather modest investment for it. 70-300mm seemed perfect for convenience, and I bought the lens. To make a long story short, this lens was a revelation and a very pleasant surprise. Image quality for this lens, including bokeh, is much beyond expectations. Use it properly, and for what a 70-300mm zoom is designed for, and you will get excellent results. Want lovely sharp images at 300mm? use it on a tripod with a remote (for camera vibration) and at high shutter speed (for subject movement), focus manually, and tell everybody you used an expensive prime for your images - nobody will argue with you! I took some really stunning images with this lens, portraits in particular, at max. focal length and fully open - no problem whatsoever. I also used it with a sharp 1.4 teleconverter - amazing!! takes you up to 420mm (and film equivalent of 630mm on DX sensors!!). If your knowledge of photography is limited, and your images are not yet at a "satisfactory" level, you will have to improve your knowledge and technique, not buy more and "better" equipment. View lenses for what they are: tools. Even the best car cannot teach you how to drive, you have to learn yourself. Lenses will not turn you into an artist, they will provide you with a basic starting point. Marginal quality differences in lens performance will make absolutely no difference in the overall "quality" of your images. This particular zoom is at a *very* high quality optically, easily competing in image quality with the best prime lenses, surpassing most of them in convenience of use, due to the broad focal range. If you are interested in the art of photography, and have no stomach for pixel-picking, definitely buy this lens instead of a more expensive alternative - it is a great creative tool, it is a joy to use, you will be happy with it and you will never regret buying it - especially at the very low selling price.

This is a truly outstanding bargain (for those who are willing to forgo the VR option of its' twice more expensive sibling). At F8 and below this lens produces results that are indistinguishable from 4-6 times more expensive 70(80)-200F2.8 lens. And it's very light and compact. I've been using it for 5 years or so, and, as you can see in photos I posted in "Customer images" section it was very good to me. You really can not go wrong with this purchase.

A couple words of caution though, as with all consumer zooms one has to be careful about shot discipline (to avoid motion blur). That does limit the use of this lens for handheld pictures to fairly bright weather (or higher ISOs). It does benefit from stepping down a little. But for the price, its' an unbeatable bargain (IMHO).

I got this lens some time ago, after several shots I can conclude somethings on this lens. It's sharp at 70mm, not so sharp from 90 to 200mm, and soft from any focal lenght farther than 200mm. The build quality is good, a bit heavy but ok to my taste. The only ED element included in this lens is not enough for avoiding chromatic aberrations, I've heard and read that either the G or D version delivery pretty the same results. The macro performance is poor, you can not go closer than 5ft. The lens is good for shooting birds, as u should know, the lens mounted on a camera with APCs sensor goes to 450mm at long end. Focus speed is also one of its weakest points, mostly from 200 to 300mm. I have some sample images on my pbase gallery (see link below) images posted on that galley have been edited and resized to a lower resolution, and most of them were taken at 300mm. The bokeh is good although you wouldnt like to see the orignal pictures since the softness and the lack of contrast is clear when u see images at full res. [...] Im leaning towards the buy of the newest version, the nikon 70-300mm VR. Hope I could get one soon, in order to post a brief opinion.

Go to Nikon's own website NikonUSA.com and compare the technical specifications of this version and the 'G' version of this lens. There are only three differences. One is that the 'G' version has its aperture set only by the camera body, while the 'D' version can have its aperture set either by the body or by a ring on the lens. All recent Nikon bodies set the aperture. The ring on the lens is invariably locked on all recent camera bodies. The second difference is that one (1) of the 13 lens elements in the D version of the lens is made of Extra Low Dispersion (ED) glass. If the dispersion difference is so important what is the deal with the other 12 elements? Sounds like marketing to me. The third difference is that the 'D' version costs three times as much as the 'G' version.

In general I agree with previous reviwers, but not about sharp. To be sure that it was not my hand that afected the sharp, I did a test. Using a tripod I did a picture with 70-300 at 135mm and after with a 18-135mm (the one that cames with the D80) at 135mm too. The camera used was a D80 with the same adjusts and subject for buth lenses. The 18-135mm is much sharper them 70-300mm at 135mm.
For sure I will sell 70-300mm and go to a VR.