Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor

I got my Nikon 70-300mm copy it came with a tripod collar, my model is not the same as shown here in this review, mine is longer may be older model, but anyway, this Nikon 70-300mm is a very sharp lens, i mounted it on my Nikon D50, it produces very sharp images, but i must say the colors and contrast is on the weak side..you should use it on a heavy and sturdy tripod..This is not IF internal focus, therefore the front of the lens will spins, its kinda noisy on AF, but very solid build.
Im happy with my copy...A keeper.

SHARP...

WEAK ON CONTRAST..macro is ok..not real macro.

Quantaray 70-300mm w/macro

none so far

Results dependant on what type of camera is used. In experienced hands a Small Nikon like DSLR 6MP sensor should do good or great. On Full Frame Film its no longer in the sweet spot.

Should not strip out after 3 or 4 years like Sigma, Quantaray, etc. Slightly better optics and only a bit more pricey than the disposables.

On the S2 Pro at 200mm (1.5x or 300mm) it actually holds its own against the 300mm 2.8 ED IF on a N90s (using Superia ISO 400-800 shooting stage venues) and Coolscan IV. Downsizing the 16MP scanned file to 6MP is needed to do the rough comparison (admittedly problematic).

The D100 is pretty soft to begin with and 6MP is not all that demanding so this lens is probably the best match for the price. Great setup for previewing Medium and Large format shots (not to mention an excellent Zone System spot meter).

In addition to the Nikon Small Sensor using the lenses' sweet spot do not underestimate filter capabilites with more than double the normal vignetting limit.

A step down in quality from the older AF model and newer faster VRs. Hunting at the long end may burn up DSLR motors faster. Its no AF-S either. Quality can (and will) vary from lens to lens in a consumer model.

At the long end f5.6 is the absolute limit for slow glass while remaining useable. Use of a Monopod or Tripod is required at the long end. Mirror lockup, Cable, Air release and Manual Focus also needed.

Unless you use E6 and C41 Film as gold standards the G version may be better. Not quite as useful as the 28-200mm version (but then you do not get to swap lens as much an get dirt all over your sensor either).

This lens would not be my first choice on the newer 12MP DSLRs.

Tamron, Sigma, Quantaray, Kenko, Wollensak, Schnieder, Ziess, Seiko

A really good purchase for me. so very sharp, (ED element present in construction) accurate colour rendition, as sharp as other F2.8 nikon mid range zooms costing double.

Sharp, acurate colour renditions

build not fabulous, but not the worse either

I've done quite some research before buying this prosumer lens. I've considered also the older 75-300. But I choose for light weight and price. I think its good value for money. Of course I would like better results but at this price you shouldn't complain. The noisy and slow af does bother me sometimes.

+ Light Weight + Good value + Good build quality + Zoomrange

- Slow and Noisy AF - Lenshood isn't effective

I mage a huge mistake, I traded a Sigma 70-300mm for this lens. The Sigma was sharp, focused well (although a little slow), had a reasonable macro ability i.e. 1:2, did not cost as much as the Nikon and once focused I new the subject would be crisp. This lens would not give consistent sharp images. I had to take over 100 shots of a very cooperative swallow to get 2 sharp images For macro photography it left a lot to be desired - since it is not really macro and I could never ne sure what part of the subject was actually in focus Any photo taken past 200mm had a very soft focus - and this is when you want it tack-sharp I tried some specific test shots and found that the lens had a very short depth of field from around 150mm-300mm, even at f8.0 and distortion was measurable - although not really noticeable in the real world I have several hunred out of focus photo's and have given up on this lens! I traded this lens for the Nikon 28-200 G f3.5-5.6 - WOW! what a lens! See my post on this site for details Having used the 28-200mm for a month I now get much better results every time I shoot with it. Because it is much sharper I can crop the image and get a sharper print than any photo I took with the 70-300mm Do yourself a favour - buy the 28-200 and save yourself a lot of wasted shots and money If you must have a 70-300, buy the Sigma If you must have a Nikon, buy the "G" version - it's cheaper and will perform at least as poorly

It fits a Nikon camera - not sure if this is a strength actually Works nicely as a paper weight

It fits a Nikon camera - that's better! Soft focus from 150-300mm most apertures Does not always focus on what you think you have in the viewfinder Should have had a tripod mount

Sigma 70-300mm (great value) Sigma 170-500 (awsome value) Nikon 28-200mm (awesome lens)

No Opinion