Anyone use a Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6G ED VR?

[TimB]

Hi all,

Having shot DSLR stuff for a few years I recently decided to try film and bought a Nikon F5 which I am loving.

Sadly the only full frame lens I have for it at the moment is a 50mm F1.8 as all my other lenses are only suitable for crop sensor as my other camera is a D90.

I've been happy with the 50mm as an 'everyday' lens and on the full frame of the F5 it is actually reasonably wide enough for most things I need, and if I need to be closer I simply walk there!

But I am now finding the lack of zoom an issue as I am shooting a few minor 'events' for friends these days and it's nice to get a few tight portrait shots of people and objects without being right in their face, plus I'm also shooting a bit of motorsport and it helps to be able to zoom in a little closer there as well.

So this led me to look at full frame zoom lenses for my F5, and the 70-300mm VR caught my eye as a contender, especially as my 18-200mm DX lens has VR and I highly rate it as a feature.

I don't want to spend a massive amount at this point (up to about £250 for a used lens) and the 70-300 fits in.

It seems to get really good reviews but has anyone used it on a 35mm like an F5 before? How does it perform on that sort of body?

Also, I'm wondering if 70mm is too high as a minimum zoom?... How far back from people do you have to be to shoot portrait or torso-head group shots on full frame with this lens?

Any other advice would be welcome

Thanks

 

[stokes]

Hi all,

Having shot DSLR stuff for a few years I recently decided to try film and bought a Nikon F5 which I am loving.

Sadly the only full frame lens I have for it at the moment is a 50mm F1.8 as all my other lenses are only suitable for crop sensor as my other camera is a D90.

I've been happy with the 50mm as an 'everyday' lens and on the full frame of the F5 it is actually reasonably wide enough for most things I need, and if I need to be closer I simply walk there!

But I am now finding the lack of zoom an issue as I am shooting a few minor 'events' for friends these days and it's nice to get a few tight portrait shots of people and objects without being right in their face, plus I'm also shooting a bit of motorsport and it helps to be able to zoom in a little closer there as well.

So this led me to look at full frame zoom lenses for my F5, and the 70-300mm VR caught my eye as a contender, especially as my 18-200mm DX lens has VR and I highly rate it as a feature.

I don't want to spend a massive amount at this point (up to about £250 for a used lens) and the 70-300 fits in.

It seems to get really good reviews but has anyone used it on a 35mm like an F5 before? How does it perform on that sort of body?

Also, I'm wondering if 70mm is too high as a minimum zoom?... How far back from people do you have to be to shoot portrait or torso-head group shots on full frame with this lens?

Any other advice would be welcome

Thanks

Was watching a video today on kelby training and that lens was described as the best lens £ for £. And that was a pro sports photographer.

 

[TimB]

Yeah I've seen a heap of good reviews but everyone seems to use it on DX bodies, and rarely on FX, and even less on 35mm so that's why I'm asking if anyone here uses it on FX/35mm

 

[kevshore]

I've owned that lens. It is a great lens. You wont find anything better for the money. I would happily own that lens again and I now have some nice glass.
I recently tried to get a friend to buy one off here, I like it that much.

Kev.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I use one on an FX D700, works just fine as a telephoto, if anything, it's a bit short at the long end. The VR's great and I've used the lens in all manner of different ypes of photography, so it's actually a very versatile focal length. It's quite compact compared to the Sigma 50-500 I've just bought - supposedly a replacement, but I might keep both now as the Sigma 's so big and heavy!

 

[TimB]

Thanks for the info so far

I use one on an FX D700, works just fine as a telephoto, if anything, it's a bit short at the long end. The VR's great and I've used the lens in all manner of different ypes of photography, so it's actually a very versatile focal length. It's quite compact compared to the Sigma 50-500 I've just bought - supposedly a replacement, but I might keep both now as the Sigma 's so big and heavy!

When you say 'a bit short at the long end' do you mean that even at 300 it's not as much of a zoom in than you would have thought for 300?

 

[redddraggon]

I've used one on an F5 and my D700, I like the lens, plenty sharp, however starting at 70mm it's a bit long for a general walk about lens.

 

[TimB]

I've used one on an F5 and my D700, I like the lens, plenty sharp, however starting at 70mm it's a bit long for a general walk about lens.

This is what I would have thought, but I've seen a quite a few landscape photos taken by people using this lens! Bizarre!

 

[TCR4x4]

I used one on a d700 as well.
It was alright, but I wanted more reach and better quality at the long end, so I ended up with a 300mm f/4 prime and a 1.4 TC.

I also had another one several years ago on a d90, which made more sense and was a much better suit. As a walk around, it's nether here nor there, but as a long telephoto, it's not got the sharpness at the long end.
But saying that, for the money, there isn't much else than can match it.

 

[gad-westy]

I used one on a d700 as well.
It was alright, but I wanted more reach and better quality at the long end, so I ended up with a 300mm f/4 prime and a 1.4 TC.

I also had another one several years ago on a d90, which made more sense and was a much better suit. As a walk around, it's nether here nor there, but as a long telephoto, it's not got the sharpness at the long end.
But saying that, for the money, there isn't much else than can match it.

Same here. I had a 70-300 on a D300 and found it superb. Moved to the the D700 and somehow it becomes a neither here nor there lens. It's not really long enough for most wild life and yet not always fast enough for portrait type stuff. It's still a great lens though but seems to sit better on DX. I ended up with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and a 2x converter for when I need more reach (interestingly almost never so far despite what I just said!).

For long stuff, I think a 300 f4 and tc would be better but I do like the flexibility of my set up. Either option is bloody heavy compared to the 70-300 mind!

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Thanks for the info so far



When you say 'a bit short at the long end' do you mean that even at 300 it's not as much of a zoom in than you would have thought for 300?

Pretty much, as the others have found. I came from a DX body where the field of view was equivalent to a 450mm, which for airshows was great. 300mm is a bit short in that environment, especially as at 300mm it's not at it's sharpest. Still a good lens though.