Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm F4.5/5.6 AFS ED VR

a little bit, yes

usually try to shot a little short of 300mm when i need the full lengh
 
All these cheaper to mid range zooms tend to be a tad soft at maximum range. Stop down and it'll sharpen up. Make sure to get a good exposure and focus. Let the VR settle. It's a great lens.
 
I found that a massive amount of the softness was being caused by the filter on mine, so now I shoot without one.
I guess it showed up at 300mm as the lens is a bit weak there.
 
I've had the lens for over a year and its only recently that i've finally become happy with it. I think i've finally worked out what its capable of and stopped asking the impossible from it. It needs good light, but for the money is damn good. Sure a prime would be better, but £500 less than the F4 prime, its pretty good
 
I find mine pretty sharp at 300mm, certainly much better than my old 18-200VR at 200mm!
This was a 300mm shot. Click on the image for original. It is a jpeg straight from the camera.



Allan
 
What you guys are describing is what I'm finding. I could have gone for the F4 but wanted the versatility of the zoom.
 
Its not perfect, but its 2000 quid cheaper and a hell of a lot lighter than the combo of the 70-200VR and the 300 f4 prime...

The results from it can be perfectly acceptable though and of course its FX too!
 
Yes, it is a bit soft from about 280-300mm on a DX camera, e.g. a D40x.

However, I find that it is actually less of a problem on an FX such as a D700. The lens seems to be well suited to the larger format.

I had planned to sell my 70-300VR when I got the D700, but kept it when I saw the results.

This is a very versatile lens all round.

Ed
 
Edward Bancroft said:
Yes, it is a bit soft from about 280-300mm on a DX camera, e.g. a D40x.

However, I find that it is actually less of a problem on an FX such as a D700. The lens seems to be well suited to the larger format.

I had planned to sell my 70-300VR when I got the D700, but kept it when I saw the results.

This is a very versatile lens all round.

Ed
Click to expand...

Yes good point Ed.
I found exactly the same thing comparing D80 to D700 at 300mm. I thought wow glad I kept it now :) It must be pixel density, I expect it'll look soft again on a D3x bit it does perform very well on a D700.
 
My oppo Gribbsy thought the same thing with his D700 - "I'll ditch the 70-300 as its not as good as the 70-200vr or the 300 2.8"... but he uses the 70-300 lots now, more than he ever used it on the D300!

Lovely and light weight and a useful range on FX and far from rubbish results.

Curious how a "cheap" lens can get better with a more expensive body - who would have thought!
 
cyclone said:
It's pixel density. The sensor out resolves the glass in the 10+MP DX cameras.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course you are spot on with the technical description.

I know there's a lot of discussion about glass performance with high pixel densities recently (the Canon 50D for example) and you have to wonder whether very soon Canon and Nikon are actually going to make a retrograde step... mind you, it would sell a lot more expensive glass!
 
Wide open at 300 and you won't cut yourself on the pics. Better than the older 70-300G though. Stop down to f/8 or so and it's pretty good, f/11's slightly sharper though. Drop down to 250mm and it's pretty damn good, especially for the price. Of course a prime will beat it at wider apertures - the 70-300 hasn't got them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top