My friend just found his old Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D

[boris_miljevic]

<p>I felt a need to post this here...<br /> My friend just found his old Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D sittin in some bag in his house :)<br /> He did not knew of its existance until today :)))<br /> In was in a rush so I have placed it on my D60, and shoot at 1/60 f/5.6 ISO-100 at 210mm with M-focus...and shoot just one Jpeg...<br /> Picture is out of camera...not crop, levels,...nothing, just imported jpeg...<br /> I am amazed by colors and sharpness...or is it just me...</p><div></div>

[User_276104]

<p>It may be just Internet lore, but after Ken Rockwell gave a favorable "digital use" review of the lens, used prices spiked a bit and there was a bit of a run on them.</p>

[michael mccann]

<p>I own a copy of that lens and have tested it on my D90. It is just not sharp enough compared to any of my modern lenses.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>I have owned this lens for a couple of decades and use it mostly on my film Nikons. The lens has consistently received good ratings despite its low price tag and consumer zoom aperture range. It is slow to focus, but once focus is achieved, the results are actually very good.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>good find! that's a very good lens. i still use mine sometimes on professional shoots outdoors on a D90 and D200.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>It's my poor man's 80-200 :o)<br>

I use it on my F4, F100 and D200 with relish.<br>

Jim<br>

No mustard jokes, PLZ!)</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Sample below.<br>

Taken on a D200, @1/90th, 210mm and F8.0.<br>

Purportedly, the longer end (210) is its lousiest. I find it still darn nice.</p><div></div>

[hal_b]

<p>Nothing wrong with that lens! For the same money, it's better than the newer 70-300mm AF-D version, if you ask me. I thought that was the point of Ken's review. I was looking for one recently, but I ended up buying the 70-210mm f/4 instead. If I had more money to spend, I would get the newest 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR. I haven't used it, but it's supposed to be much sharper than any of the previous versions. Or course, for even more money, you get the 80-200mm, and then the 70-200mm VR, in that order.</p>

[dpbours]

<p>The colours are okay and it's hard to say something about the sharpness without a 100% crop. But it is a good lens for the money. I use the Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 myself, which I find to be a sharper lens, but at f/2.8 that is not really surprising.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I inherited one via a bag of disused stuff that a family member was going to throw away. While its not my most used lens I have had fun with it and have taken some decent images too.</p>

<p>I find it pretty sharp especially for what is essentially a consumer zoom. I also like the colours it gives... if anything mine at least has a 'cool' character about it that renders metals, stone surfaces etc particularly well. (I don't know if this makes rational sense, but my lenses - to me at least - have a kind of 'colour character' as well as their other properties).</p>

[sexgun]

<p>"It may be just Internet lore, but after Ken Rockwell gave a favorable "digital use" review of the lens, used prices spiked a bit and there was a bit of a run on them."<br>

I think the lens KR gave a favorable review to was the older AF 70-210mmF4 (fixed max. aperture), not this model.</p>

[larrybc]

<p>No, Ken did give a favourable review for the 70-210/4-5.6D.</p>

<p>FWIW I have and it's a good lens. Not amazing, but it did the job (I use a 70-300VR and 70-200VR now). For me, the big problem is that it's hard to hand hold 200mm on DX without VR, and I usually don't use tripods.</p>

<p> </p>