Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens

[wesleyfarnsworth]

Has anyone used this lense? How are the results? I'm shooting with a D80 body. I'm finding some on differnet sites

for about $60 used.

[martijn_houtman]

<p>

There is no extensive review here, but Photo.net Equipment section says:

</p>

<p>

<i>

Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor SLR Camera, $134, half the weight, half the cost, half the optical quality of the 70-

300/5.6D

</i>

</p>

<p>

As with most things, you get what you pay for.

</p>

[george_mazzetti1]

The 70-300G is a piece of junk. so stay away from it. I just bought a mint used 70-300 4.0~5.6D ED and it is superb. Here is a shot at 300mm.<div></div>

[joshloeser]

Everything I've read says to keep away from this lens, and I know I will. It's part of why I want to move past the D40,

because there are better options available than this lens if you can AF with them.

[elliot1]

Since there is only a small difference in price, it makes sense to get the ED version if you can afford it. The G version is capable of good results if used carefully. Nikon does not make any JUNK lenses although

 

I had the G lens briefly and found it gave very good image quality up until 200mm and then was a little soft between 200mm and 300mm although stopping it down to f8 helped a lot.

 

As there is not a huge difference between 200mm and 300mm, may I suggest you look at the 55-200mm lens which gives exceptional results throughout its zoom range. The VR version is about the same price as the 70-300mm (used).

[shuo_zhao]

I think that lens will provide ok image quality if used at f/8-f/11. But in that case, you won't be able to achieve subject isolation, or a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion without cranking up the ISO too high.

 

I think either the 55-200 VR or the 70-300 VR would be a better investment in the long run.

[Michael R Freeman]

> "Nikon does not make any JUNK lenses although ..."

 

Depends on your definition of "junk" I guess. :-)

 

Optically, I suppose not (within limitations, i.e. if used well stopped down). However, Nikon has certainly made it's fair share of CHEAP, POORLY CONSTRUCTED lenses in the past decade. But in fairness, the third party lens makers pretty much forced them to do so.

[ptkeam]

I have one of these lenses that I picked up for about $70. -- It IS all plastic (even the mount) and it wouldn't stand up to really heavy use. However, that being said, it does produced decent optical results. I try to stop down at least one stop -- even if I have to bump up the ISO a stop.

If you can get one for sixty bucks I'd say go for it. You really can't go wrong. I mostly use my 18-200 but will use the 70-300 for sports and wildlife when I want a little extra reach.<div></div>

[angkordave]

The 70-300 g lens wasn't a bad budget lens. I had results far better then I expected with mine. It was bought as cheap tele lens after I changed systems. I used it for much longer than planned. After 4 years of heavy use it started to make horrible noises and was replaced.

 

If you budget is higher the70-300 VR version is better built; but otherwise look for a lightly used 70-300G and try one it first

[mightypir]

if you are getting it for $60. thats a steal!!! dont ask us, just get it. its not a bad lens provided you know its limitations (softness at 300mm, slow speed, poor build). Another important factor is what are you using it for and how often...it does not make sense to blow a lot of money for big tele zoom that you only use once in a year.

 

I have been using the G lens for the last two years (primarily kids sports and concerts) and have recently upgraded to the VR when I had the cash.

[eric_bowles]

It's well worth it to spend the extra $100 to get the ED version of this lens. I'd stay away ffrom the G version due to the build and image quality characteristics.

 

John Shaw reported the ED version as part of his light weight kit. It pairs well with extension tubes, close-up lenses, and both DX and FX bodies. No teleconverters with this lens and keep it stopped down if possible above 200mm.

[bms]

One vote to spend the extra money (mind you. it's a few $100) and get the 70-300 VR which has rarely disappointed

me.

[george_mazzetti1]

I still say the 70-300 is JUNK. If you can afford a D80 you should be able to afford the 70-300D ED. Here is another shot @ 105mm f5.6<div></div>

[george_mazzetti1]

Note: The flag pic was shot with my 70-300D ED. It will easily produce a very sharp 13x19.

[eric_arnold]

at $60, the 70-300 G isnt overpriced, but the ED version is better. that one used to retail for $400 new, so if you can get it for under half that, it's worth it. the 70-300 VR is even better but much more expensive.<div></div>

[rauber]

I did not buy this lens because of the reviews. I opted for the f/4.5-5.6G VR ED lens and with my Bushhawk shoulder

mount and increasing my ISO on my D80 I have captured some great photos of birds in flight. I'm pleased. I also

took advantage of Amazons no interest pay plan because the lens is costly although I paid $700 + a year ago and

Amazon shows it now for $485. Bummer.

[frankeleveld]

My 70-300G has given me photos which are much better than its modest price tag would suggest. Over 200mm it's not the sharpest optic (but my sample is definitely capable of producing decent results in conjunction with my D200) and its construction doesn't inspire confidence, but so far I'm happy with the results, although I'm seeking to replace mine some time later on with a telephoto prime.