70-300mm 4.5/5.6 G AF-S VR v 70-300mm 4.5/5.6 E AF-P VR

[mike_halliwell]

The VR has died on my 'ancient' AF-S version. It's mainly used as a walk-around lens by a friend who sometimes does internal church details, ie in dim light.  She likes VR!

I suspect getting it fixed is £££, even if they have the parts.

Is the newer AF-P as good or better than the AF-S version?

AFAIK, AF-P works happily on the D850.

[ShunCheung]

Personally I have decided that the 500mm PF I bought in January 2019 would be my last F-mount lens.

Your mileage may vary.

[robert_bouknight1]

I have not done an exhaustive side by side test, but I did not think I would be happy using my friend's AFS, and I am perfectly happy using my AF-P at least on 24MP.  Sure, my 300/2.8 is probably better, and my 70-200/4 AFS might be a little better but is heavier and does not go to 300.  Since getting the AF-P, my 70-200/4 has not gotten a lot of use.

The new Z mount options are interesting, though.

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

The new Z mount options are interesting, though.

Cryptic or what?  😉

There's the wider Z24 - 200mm 4/6.3 or the Tamron 70-300mm 4.5/6.3 I guess.

Or I get the AF-P and I can FTZ it.

 

[robert_bouknight1]

I was thinking about the 100-400 or 180-600 Z lenses.  

I usually buy used, but did buy the 70-300 AFP new.  After evaluating it, I definitely thought it was worth whatever I paid a few years ago.  I use it regularly on a FTZ & Z6.

[mike_halliwell]

2 hours ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

After evaluating it, I definitely thought it was worth whatever I paid a few years ago.  I use it regularly on a FTZ & Z6.

That's what i wanted to know. Thank You!

[dick_chandler2]

I'll second Robert's opinion. I replaced the AF-S with the AF-P a couple of years ago. The AF-S wasn't awful, but the AF-P is markedly better, especially at the long end. I'm not a great fan of Ken Rockwell, but his opinions of the AF-P comport with my experience. I use it on my D850 and on a Z7 via the original FTZ. I think you'll be happy with it.

[mike_halliwell]

Thanks everyone!

I'd forgotten there's a DX version too...:-)

[Matthew Currie]

My wife had the AFS-VR version, and when my far lesser 55-300 became too frustrating, I sprung for the new 70-300 AFP (the FX version).  So I was able to race them using the same camera and same targets.  Though the old AFS was pretty decent, and focused relatively fast and well, the new AFP surpassed it in several ways.  First, it focuses approximately twice as fast, and second it's measurably sharper, especially at the long end.  Compared to the 55-300 with its relatively poor long end quality and abysmally slow AF it was no contest, of course, but my wife liked it so much she replaced her AFS with one too.  We both use these with DX cameras (D7100 and 7200).  I have heard that the DX version is also quite good but the FX is supposed to be a tiny bit better as well as a tiny bit faster.  We opted for this one in part because of the on-lens switches, which the DX version lacks. I suspect there are few other lenses that deliver as much for the price.

[steven_p]

I have used both 70-300, af-s and af-p lenses. The FX p model is very good, but it is non-functional on a lot of older Nikons. It will work on a 2007, 12mp D300, but not a D3200, D5200/24mp body.

There is also a lot of poly carb in the lens makeup of the P lens. I honestly dislike it because it feels so light & cheap. It is like a giant 18-55 with a metal lens mount.

Optics and focus speed make the af-p FX imo the better choice.

[rconey]

I have the AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E VR. It does well with the FTZ adapter and my Z7. On my prior D850 the exposure metering was off at 300 mm.