Compared to Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S
19) Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR vs Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S
I have been spoiled by the superb performance of the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S for more than three years now and I really wanted to see how the Nikon 70-300mm compares with it at 300mm. It is a little unfair to compare these lenses, since the 300mm f/4.0 costs three times more, but I still wanted to see how much of a difference there would be in sharpness. The below test was shot with the Nikon D300 @ 300mm:
As expected, the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 is much sharper than the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, even wide open at f/4.0.
The sad part is when you look at the corners – that’s where the Nikon 70-300mm VR clearly shows its weakness and the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S shines. Again, it is quite expected to see these kinds of results, as the two lenses are of different classes.
The Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S takes the lead not only when it comes to sharpness, but also when it comes to focus speed, especially in low-light and tough back-light situations.
About Nasim Mansurov
у меня 70-300 безмоторный (фокус работает через отвертку) и безВРный, зато стоит всего $120 =) я думал ХА у моторного ЕД на контрастных частях нет, а оказывается есть, поэтому не вижу смысла париться моторным экземпляром.
Мне нравится мой 70-300, хоть он и немного мылит и имеет ХА.
Вот, тебе надо в статье упомянуть, что все таки есть и бюджетный вариант, который в 4,5 раза дешевле, но по качеству особо не отличается =)
Medvezhutka, у тебя “AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G” да? Все остальные варианты в продаже не имеются и Nikon их больше не производит…
AF Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6G (без zoom-a если это имеет значение). Зачем отвертки тогда встраивают, если безмоторные объективы поснимали с производства? загадка Никона =))
I have looked at many sites on this subject and not come across a site such as yours which tells everyone everything that they need to know. I have bookmarked your site. Can anyone else suggest any other related topics that I can look for to find out further information?
Constant Focus, thank you for your feedback!
I highly recommend to check out our Photography Tips for Beginners page for more photography articles.
Zaman bulup bunları hazırlayıp bize gönderdiğin için çok teşekkürler Nasim.
Sevgiler
Tesekkurler Rifat, elimden gele kadar yardimci olmak istiyorum. Hak verip okudugunuza cok mutluyum :)
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for this great review. I’d like to know wether the pictures displayed in this review are modified (in Capture NX or Photoshop or…) ?
I have this lens (the first issue) and I tried it on my brain new D700 and I’m a bit disappointed with the results (too soft, lacks sharpness clearly visible on 100% crop). I’m definetly a newcomer when it comes to taking photo of (fast) moving animals and the best I can get of my running dog with this lens is this: http://picasaweb.google.com/jfellmann/D700#
After seeing your pictures my best guess is that my camera settings are wrong.
Usually for fast moving subject I use these settings on my D700:
- Auto ISO (max set to 1600)
- AF-C
- a1 (AF-C priority): focus
- a4 (Focus tracking w/ lock on): 1 (short)
- Manual selection of AF point (center)
- Metering: matrix
Your input on this would be appreciated.
Regards
–
Joaquim
Joaquim, all pictures with the exception of the building were imported in Default settings into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and I exported them without making any modifications (besides white balance & sharpen for web during export).
The picture of the building was a little overexposed, so I reduced the exposure to -0.5 in Lightroom before exporting.
I used the “Camera Standard” camera profile within Lightroom for all images.
When you say that you have the first issue of the lens, do you mean that it is the non-VR version of the lens? Or is it exactly the same?
Lack of sharpness could be due to camera shake or improper focus, so definitely make sure that you do not have those problems. In some rare cases, a lens might have a back/front-focus issue where the lens will incorrectly adjust its focus even if your camera is instructing it to do it right. There are some ways to find out if your lens has this kind of a problem. I will be writing a quick how-to guide on checking back/front focus issues in lenses within the next couple of days.
Your image of the dog seems to be sharp. There are some issues with the image (very dark background and very bright sun), but other than that, I did not see anything wrong with it.
As far as your camera settings, everything seems to be right. I typically set the AF-C mode to “focus and release” instead of just “focus”, because I still want my camera to fire when the subject moves very quickly (like a bird). Focus tracking is good, AF point is good, matrix metering should also work in most cases.
How about when you try to shoot non-moving subjects with that lens? Do you still get soft images when viewed at 100%? What about your shutter speed? How fast do you set your shutter speed on moving subjects and what is your “Min Shutter Speed” in “Auto ISO”?
Hi Nasim, thanks for your answer.
Regarding the version of my lens, I thought Nikon released a new version of this lens because of the VR2 technology embedded in the current one. Mine is quite a few years old but has the VR letters written on it.
I’m quite interested about your upcoming post on back/front focus issues. I got one AF-D f/1.4 that is just useless at f/1.4 (but great at f/2), maybe due to BF/FF issues.
For non moving subjects the pictures I get are quite sharp with this 70-300mm (providing that there is enough light etc… but it’s quite good at 100%).
Usually I choose 1/1000s for shutter speed. I also tried with 1/2000s but the results in terms of sharpness are quite similar. The auto ISO min shutter speed is never reached when shooting fast moving animals, because I don’t even try to shoot these kind of pictures if light is not sufficient. Maybe I’m demanding this lens too much in terms of sharpness :-)
Anyway, thanks again for your input
Oops, the AF-D f/1.4 mentioned in my previous comment is a 50mm.
Regards
Joaquim, you are most welcome!
As far as I know, there is only one “VR” version of this lens, which is actually “VR II”. So, yours should be the same as the one I tested.
I also have the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and there are a few things you need to keep in mind:
a) f/1.4 aperture has a very shallow depth of field, which means that you have to be super careful about focusing with this lens. I typically never shoot below f/2.0 with the 50mm.
b) The lens is not very sharp wide open at f/1.4. The new AF-S version is a little better, but still not super sharp at the maximum aperture.
So, I do not think you have any focus issues with your 50mm lens.
As far as your 70-300mm lens, 1/1000th of a second is good enough to keep everything still. Perhaps you are not using the VR correctly? When you photograph fast-moving subjects at really high shutter speeds, you might be better off by turning “VR” off. Remember, VR is only effective if you are letting it stabilize for a few seconds before shooting (by half-pressing the shutter). If you are just snapping pictures without waiting, VR could actually harm image sharpness.
Nasim,
I made additional tests with my 70-300mm and I managed to get sharper results than before by stopping down the aperture to f/7. Combined with a focal length of 200mm instead of 300mm this aperture allows me to get nice results.
Regarding the 50mm I’m pretty sure I have FF/BF issues. On the following picture I focused on the nose. When cropped at 100% the nose is blurry but part of the fingers and the hand (which are closer to the camera) are far better: http://picasaweb.google.com/jfellmann/D700#5446256775582139330
But anyway I agree with you, f/1.4 is only useful for specific cases, most of the time I’m stopping down to f/2 or above.
Regards
Joaquim, that’s strange, because my sample was pretty sharp wide open…try to play more with the 70-300mm and if you are not getting good results, you might want to send your lens to Nikon.
As far as your 50mm lens sample image, the camera might have had a difficult time focusing on the nose because there is not much contrast on the nose. Try focusing on an object that has a distinct color/tone and see how your lens focuses. You should perform this test on a tripod, because if you move your body back and forth, the focus will shift as well.
Hi Nasim,
Did you ever post about the “back/front focus issue”? I am having the same issues as Joaquim with the Nikon 70mm-300mm lens and it is driving me crazy. Less than ideal lighting and I don’t have sharp images :(
Thanks, Jolie
Hi Nasim!
I checked the Photography Tips for Beginners page and its really informative. That posting would really help beginners for photography. Great posting! Keep it up. What are the other things that you can share with us in regards with this topic?
You are welcome!
By the way, every time you leave a comment there is a URL to some sort of a pharmaceutical drug. The system automatically triggers it as spam and I’m removing it.
Thank for the reviews.
I have this lens. It have sharper conner than 70-200VRI at 70mm.
It should have tripod collar.
You are most welcome! I’m assuming you are shooting with a DX body?
on page 2 your test 70-300 center at 300mm 5.6 is sharp, but on page 3 when you compared with 300mm f4 that same image of the 70-300mm at f5.6 was blurred,any explanation why? why did you not show the image on page 2 in comparison with the 300mm f4????
Fair Test, thank you for stopping by and dropping a comment!
Have you had a chance to download both files and open them with an EXIF viewer to see the difference? Once you do that, you will realize that both shots were taken with different cameras (the first shot was taken with D700 and the second shot when compared to 300mm f/4.0 was taken with D300) at different subject distances. The fuzziness on the 100% crop on the 300mm f/4.0 comparison is due to the cropped sensor.
What’s important to note though, is that both shots in the last comparison were taken with the D300, so the comparison is fair. I specifically tested the lens with two different bodies, because many birders would use the D90/D300/D300s cameras with these lenses.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks ..Very useful review.
You are most welcome George, appreciate your feedback!
This review is amazing.. i just brought this lens last week, i know this lens is good for birding and wild life in good light.. will it be useful for potrait…
Nuve, thank you for your feedback!
Absolutely, it will be also good for portraits, because it can separate subjects from the background beautifully!
Thanks Nasim..
When i try inhouse with flash i am not getting good pictures, as you say is it reason that i am shooting beyond 200mm
Nuve, yes, your flash will not reach so far…
I am on to my third lens (D90 + 18-200 VR+ 50mm f1.8D) and thinking about 70-300 to round out my collection. There is an old version of this lens that is only $145, this one is over $500. Is the cheaper one okay? I won’t be atking many pictures with this lens, just occasionally at the long focal lengths. Autofocus sholuld work on my D90. And VR shouldn’t be much of a factor outdoors at fast shutter speeds, right? The aperture on both is the same. What am I missing?
Bipin
Bipin, the older non-VR version is also good, but I would rather wait, save up and get the new one instead. VR helps and works great for these focal lengths…
Hi Nasim,
Which is the Best lens for wild life photography?
Nuwan, what is your budget and what specifically are you planning to take pictures of?
Hi Nasim
I have no Problem with the Budget.i wanna be Wild Life PhotoGrapher (Specially Animals).Highly Apprecite ur Advice
Rgds
Nuwan, if you are shooting birds, the Nikon 600mm f/4.0G VR is the best one. If you are shooting mammals, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II or Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0G VR II are ideal.
I got a new Nikon SLR today. It feels fantastic to be able to take pictures with such an awesome camera, instead of some cheap compact.
Congratulations!
Sevgili Nasim bey,
İstanbul/Türkiye’den selamlar. Ben burada “Fotoğrafçılık ve Kameramanlık Yüksek Okulu”nda okuyorum. Sitenizi ve yorumlarınızı çok beğenerek takip ediyorum. Başarılarınızın devamını dilerim…
Cenk
Cenk, tesekkur ederim! Thanks for visiting our site and good luck with your studies in your school!
Selamun Aleykum.
Great review !
Just bought this lens and it’s remarkable. Having moved from a Sigma 70-300 , it’s a world of difference. Haven’t really had a chance to try it out in daylight yet but portraits @ 70mm have come out beautiful.
I encountered the constant trying-retrying of the autofocus to latch on a tree bark but could not and I was thinking is there a problem in the lens, but after reading your review, glad to know it’s one of quirks in the lens…as long as I know the behavior, I can compensate.
But overall, I feel very happy with the purchase.
Belthur, thank you for your feedback and I’m glad you like the lens!
Good luck with your photography.
I want a lens that will reach at least 300mm so I can photographer gliders and light aircraft. I am trying to decide if the extra weight, cost, reduced flexibility (non zoom) and no VR of the Nikon 300mm f4 mean that the Nikon 70-300mm AFS VR lens would actually be a better bet. The trouble is that I like sharp photos. What do you think please?
Mike, if you like sharp photos, the 300mm f/4.0 is a better lens. On the other hand, if you will be photographing aircraft from close distances, then the 70-300mm is a better bet…
Thank you for your reply. I am only worried about using a lens at 300mm in general. Although I read the 300mm f4 is sharper than the 70-300, I am concerned that as it doesn’t have VR and weighs much more, then I might have an issue using the 300mm lens and getting the best from it. So, my dilema is does VR 0n the lower quality 70-300 lens mean that in general use, the picture quality will be closer to the 300mm lens than test results alone suggest?
Mike, the sharpness of the 300mm f/4.0 is an optical quality, not a matter of camera shake. So it will always be sharper than the 70-300mm @ 300mm…
VR on the 70-300mm is certainly helpful, but the 300mm f/4 focuses faster and more accurately, has better optics and can take teleconverters. It is a whole different animal.
If you need the reach and sharpness (for small birds, etc), then go with the 300mm f/4.0. If you just need a general lens for telephoto work, then the 70-300mm might suffice.
Nasim, thank you very much for your good advice which I really appreciate. This helps me a lot.
Hi Nasim
Your site is pretty helpful, every pieces of your information is valuable, Great posting! Keep it up . I just wonder this 70-300mm VR is prime lens ! thanks
Thank you Lee!
No, 70-300mm is not a prime lens. Prime lenses are the same as fixed lenses and they only offer one focal length to work with, whereas zoom lenses can zoom in and out.
Dear Mansurovs
Thank you so much ur Guidance
Im Planing to buy 80-400mm vr and I also have 70-300mm.Highly appreciate if you can advice me about 80-400mm vr (as its much expensive )
Best Regards
Nuwan
Nuwan, I would not buy the 80-400mm, because it has a very slow AF. I believe Nikon is planning to release an AF-S version later next year, so either wait, or get the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 instead.
HI Nasim
Like i said befor im using 70-300mm vr. but im thinking to buy 80-400mm or 70-200mm vr ii.
which one is good wildlife photography would you help me with this
Regards
Nuwan
Nuwan, it depends on how close you are to the wildlife. For large mammals, the Nikon 70-200mm is clearly a better choice. For small birds, the Nikon 80-400mm is better, but then the AF is very slow…
Hi Nasim,
I was really headed towards getting this lense after all the good reviews, until I realized that there is no collar on this lense for being supported in a tripod?
I am thinking at times this could be a problem when lense is scoped out and you need a tripod for longer exposures ect… (especially when balanced on d90/7000 body). What is your thoughts on this, do I have a realistic concern here that should prompt me to consider another lense instead?
Thanks!
Francis, this lens does not have a collar and is not supposed to have one, because it is a lightweight lens.
Only heavy lenses require collars, in order to be able to support a camera body without damaging the lens mount. Why would you want to shoot the 70-300mm on a tripod? It is a very hand-holdable lens and VR is super helpful.
Thanks Nasim,
I was thinking for longer timed exposure shots, or while zoomed at the longer focal length, trying to minimize any shake for the cleanest shots, but perhaps I need to not worry about this.
Thom Hogan had written on his review of this lens that when the lense was scoped out at length with the camera in a tripod that some shake was noted (if I am understanding his comments correctly) that was linked in his opinion to the effects of the long length of this lense balanced on a smaller lighter camera body. He did note that further testing was needed to see if VR would actually eliminate any ill effects of this though…
I dont think I am worried about it just thought I would get your opinion incase you had noticed any problems….
Thanks again for spending the time to respond!
Francis, yes, do not worry about camera shake too much ;-) VR and good ISO performance will help to minimize it.
Are you sure you were reading the 70-300mm review on Thom’s website? I believe he did not like the lens collar on the 300mm f/4.0 lens, but I don’t remember seeing that on the 70-300mm review.
Hi Nasim,
I copy and pasted the paragraph below in quotation marks directly from Thom’s review of the 70-300 VR lense so you can see directly the piece I was reading that made me a bit leary and started to make me question the lense choice…if you have any comments on the piece I have inserted please share. I still believe I would like to own this lense regardless…..:)
“The lack of a tripod collar is not surprising considering the audience for this lens and its price. But be aware that at 300mm the lens is extended quite far (see picture, above), and the possibility of even very small tripod vibrations reducing image quality is definetely a possibility. On my 1325 with a RRS BH-55, I can lock down and not see any compromising in IQ. On the lightest, cheapest tripod I have available to me fully extended (an old Gitzo four-section metal Traveler) with a lighter head, I can see small amounts of camera movement at low shutter speeds. I have no way of telling for sure if redistributing the mass to the center of gravity (one of the things a good tripod collar does) would help, but I strongly suspect it would. VR doesn’t necessarily compensate for the missing tripod collar, by the way; I can still see slight camera movement using both VR settings.”
Francis, I personally don’t see a reason to mount the 70-300mm on a tripod, unless you are shooting in the dark (where you would have problems with AF anyway). And if you need to shoot on a tripod for whatever reason, just use Mirror Lock-Up and use a remote cable release – you should be in good shape!
Are you planning to get the lens from B&H by any chance?
Thanks for the advice Nasim, I think my gear so far is going to look like this: D7000, 10-24, 35, and 70-300.
I am located in Alberta, Canada so i have not give much thought before to B&H, but after hearing so much about them for positive remarks I will for sure check out the prices and factor in shipping etc.. and consider my purchase from them for sure. I will be comparing directly to “the camera store” located in Calgary Alberta and see what kind of difference there is fo where I am located….
Thanks!
Francis, sounds good, let me know how you like your D7000! :)
Hi Francis,
Keep in mind that Nikon Canada does not respect the warranty if the equipment has been bought outside Canada. I am considering 70-300 VRII also (I live in Montreal) and the the price on B&H is attractive, but it might be a good idea to check with them (Nikon Canada) first, as B&H is selling the US version of it. As far as I know the serial number starts with US… and to register the product on Nikon Canada website you need to enter it (along with you address).
Check the price on http://www.adencamera.com as well. 70-300 VR is on *sale* right now (December 10) and the price is $439.99 (before Shipping&Tax). Here is the link:
http://www.adencamera.com/prod-overview.asp?ProdID=1588&Category=7
Regards,
Thanks for the info Emil, would you consider adencamera the best place to purchase camera gear in canada that you have found so far?
I could not tell if it is the best place to buy camera gear, but I found they have good prices for some stuff and are authorized Nikon dealer. A day ago I ordered Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D from them. You can also check http://www.vistek.ca
Hi Nasim,
Great review!
I came across your site by searching for more opinions about the lens. I have D90 with 18-105 kit lens and I am considering to get 70-300 VR to have longer lens for occasional wildlife, but mainly I will be using it for on-table product shooting at home (for which I am considering to get SB-600 with an umbrella to start). Do you think 70-300 VR will do the job or Is the SIgma’s 150mm F2.8 EX APO DG HSM Macro better, considering the price difference and the fact that Sigma is preparing a new version of 150 Macro with OS. I would like to have a very sharp dedicated macro lens , as well.
A lot of questions, but I hope you get the idea.
Your advise will be highly appreciated.
Thank you,
Emil
Emil, 70-300mm is not a macro lens. If your subject is macro, I would go with a dedicated macro instead.
Nasim,
Thank you for your reply.
I know 70-300 VR is not a macro lens. My question is which one (Nikkor 70-300VR or Sigma 150 MACRO) is better choice for product shots? Or could you recommend a better lens for on-table product shots in the same price range?
Thank you,
Emil
Emil, I don’t really know much about the Sigma 150 macro. If you want a good quality macro lens, look into the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G VR lens…
Forgot to mention – The products are not macro. Mainly cosmetics products.
Thank you,
Emil
Hello Nasim,
Just today accidentally I visited this site and Thank you! for sharing your findings I liked the contents, comparision of the lenses and the way you presented the things.
And I admire the most on this site is reply to each and every thread.
I am running with tight budget and planning to add one more lens for 35 mm film camera. At present I do have 28-80 mm kit lens as will as 50 mm f/1.8. I loved the sharpness of 50 mm lens and looking for similar sharp lens with budget around $500.
After reading many blogs I have shortlisted Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR as wide angle lens might be over budget and telezoom will be more useful.
Do Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR produce crisp picture as 50 mm?
Do you suggest any other lens rather than 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR?
Thanks in advance.
FM, 70-300mm is a very good lens – see my Nikon 70-300mm VR review. It is not going to be as sharp as your 50mm (it is hard to beat the 50mm sharpness), but it is still pretty good for telephoto needs. If you want a much better telephoto lens for specific needs like birding, take a look at the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S.
Thank you, Nasim for your honest suggestion :-)
You are most welcome!
Solid review, and I agree wholeheartedly w/ your assessment of this lens. I call this the ‘sleeper’ lens in the Nikon lineup, and recommend it to parents with cameras that can’t afford/justify a 70-200f2.8 VR II or 300f2.8. They don’t care about image ‘pop’ so much as getting that shot of Johnny/Jane across the soccer field.
As you mention, it’s a lighter kit which is nice. When I travel, I leave my 70-200f2.8VRII home, and bring this lens along w/ my D3s & 24-70. I actually found your site looking for 24-120 reviews so I was pleased to see your assessment of that lens (although I may also consider the 16-35 for the travel kit).
Thank you for your feedback Chris! I also have a review of the 16-35mm, which I really like.
Can anyone recommend a better lens then the nikon70-300mm? I can’t go much heavier as I do most handheld. I do a lot of nature/ birds so I need the 300mm. Thanks!
Jolie, take a look at the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S – I personally use it for birding a lot.
Funny thing is that I went to change my lens and noticed a big gap ( a little less than a 1/4 of an inch) between my uv filter and the lens. Like it got unscrewed and a little lopsided. Not sure how that happened but do you think that could be the cause of my pics not being so sharp? Not for sure how big the gap was, but enough for me to notice.
Thanks, jolie
Jolie, I wouldn’t worry about it – you probably just did not screw it all the way, or the filter did not fully align with the threads on the lens. Either way, that should not affect your images in any way.
Hi, i own this lens. I am seriously thinking to replace it with an 80-200 2.8 AFD. I think doing this i would get more quality and light. Do you think the change is worth?
Thanx
Zal, oh yeah – the 80-200mm is a different class lens and will be much sharper and nicer than the 70-300mm. The only thing to keep in mind, is that the 80-200mm has no VR and you will be losing the 100mm extra reach that you are getting with the 70-300mm.
how is the sharpness of 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens ? compare to 80-200mm 2.8 AFD?
Thank you
Dear Nasim,
I want to buy a fast telezoom. With budget restriction I decided to buy Nikon 70-300. But I can’t decide between Tamron 70-300 & Nikon 70-300. I’ve been goin through some forum discussions in dpreview.com. And found that Nikon is not as sharp as Tamron after 200mm. I’m worried. Please help me decide . . .
Sainthan
I’ve been also been debating as between the Tamron 70-300 and the Nikon 70-300. It seems that the Tamron is sharp throughout the entire focal length but there are quite a few comments out there about the Nikon not being as sharp over 200mm. I was leaning towards the Tamron but have an opportunity to buy a used Nikon (in excellent shape) for about $100 less than Tamron; and so I’m back to being not sure which way to go. Any thoughts on which lens I should go with?
I too am debating between the Tamron and Nikon 70-300mm lenses. There are so many postings with justification for each of the lenses. I understand Tamron is much better at the 300mm end of the lens while the Nikon is better at 200m and lower. Image quality is most important for me, so which is better and in which areas of the focal lengths?
Well I made the plunge and opted for the Nikon. Haven’t had a chance to use it very much just yet, but the few shots I’ve taken at 300 are quite good at f8 or f11. Even at f5.6 it’s not as bad as you would think from reading some comments.
Would you mind letting me know how you like it after you use it more? I want to get a good feel before I buy it.
Thanks!
I am just starting in photography. I purchased this lens for hiking in the mountains because of it’s light weight. I am planning on taking pictures of waterfalls in the mountains. For the majority of the falls, the 70-300 is excellent. My problem is that with some of them I cannot get into the area to get some close up shots. I’m wondering if there are extension tubes or teleconverters that would work on the Nikon D60. I’ve been to the Nikon website and right now it’s technically over my head. Do you have any advice or information about the D60 and teleconverters
Kindest regards,
Cindy
Cindy, I read one place (don’t remember which photo web site) that teleconverters do not work well on this type of zoom lens and are not recommended. Something about the maximum aperture is large enough for the AF to function properly and makes for softer photos.
Great reviews man, thanks a lot!
Насим, добрый вечер, и большое спасибо за интересный обзор!
Я не нашел даты написания статьи, но хотел бы уточнить пару моментов.
1.
“Sharpness and contrast-wise, it definitely beats any other consumer telephoto lens
in the 200-300mm range category.”
Последняя не так давно вышедшая “L” версия 70-300 от Canon ощутимо дороже Никкора,
но и по оптическому качеству его тоже превосходит. Не знаю, правда, насколько её можно рассматривать, как “consumer”. :)
2.
Может быть, стоит сформулировать для читателей в качестве резюме простую рекомендацию,
( подверженную опытом использования объектива, и вполне согласованную с приведенными тестами): при съемке на теле-конце диапазона придерживаться диафрагмы 8, насколько это позволяют условия освещения.
Thanks for the very informative review. I have the Nikon 70-300VR for birding on long hikes and the old non-AFS 300 f/4 for use on a tripod. I agree completely that the zoom just can’t beat a prime, no matter under what conditions.
I read a few reviews that the Tamron 70-300 VC has better images than Nikon 70-300 VR. I’m thinking of selling the NIkon to get the Tamron instead… Can you do a comparison of the Tamron zoom against the Nikon zoom and Nikon 300 f/4? How about the non-AFS 300 f/4 too?
Dear Nasim,
I want to know, at which apperture is the nikon 18-55 ( 3.5-5.6 vr) kit lense and the nikon 70-300 ( 4.5-5.6 vr ) the sharpest in all shooting conditions ?
Thanks
Amit
Nasim,
This is an excellent site for reviews and suggestions. I am a newbie into DSLR. Right now I am using Canon SX20 IS – a compact camera and I am planning to get my first DSLR very soon.
My choices are stuck up between Canon 60D and Nikon D7000. I am a little biased towards Canon, but looking at the reviews I am considering getting D7000.
I am also planning to get my stuff from B&H, and since I live pretty close to the store in Manhattan, I am planning to get these going over to the store rather than online.
Now, the items where I need some help and suggestion:
My choices are:
1. D7000, 18 – 105, 70 – 300
2. D7000, 18 – 55, 55 – 300
3. 60D, 18 – 135, 70 – 300
(all VR or IS as canon calls them, with silent motor)
Initially I thought of 18-55 and 55-300, but going thru yours and Ken Rockwell’s reviews I am opting for 70 – 300, and since I am starting at 70mm, I have to get the 18-105 rather than 18-55.
Also I do understand from Amit’s inputs that 18-55 is not “always” handy as 18-105 is, so I am planning to stick to option #1 above.
While I do have a budget constraint, it can be compromised for quality of items I am getting. Would the package price I am getting at B&H for #2 be good enough for me to go for #2 rather than for #1. I know its tough to decide, and thats where I am stuck at.
Also the package deal for #3 (Canon) was there last month (they seem to have removed it now, but I am pretty sure they will be back with that soon) was also very challenging.
As an amateur I try to get and improvise on all types of photographs. While on vacation and touring its mostly wildlife, mountains and landscape with occasional portraits of family members. Otherwise its mostly cityscapes, riversides.
Dear Vicky,
Just go for Nikon D7000. But i hope u are aware of the fact that it slightly overexposes highlights. Apart form that its just awesome. Also consider D90, is a good buy for its new price ( the only issue, its a bit old and the technology has grown so the low noise performance at higher iso is not as good as the recent cameras ) . Well between Cannon and Nikon, one is Audi and the other is a BMW, practically and personally it will all boil down to handfeel.
Coming to the lenses.
Practically for a lense, it all boils down to optics and auto focus speed.
Nikon 18 – 55 Vr is a versitile lense, u can use it as wide angle @ 18 mm, its good for macro ( bigger insects and flowers ), @ around 35mm its nice for street photos and @ around 50mm its nice for portraits. Above all it has great optics for its price. Well the only issue you will have is the auto focus, its a bit slow as it hunts for the right focus at times ( mainly indoors / low light ). Also as for the manual focus, focus ring is too short and its not easy to focus manually with smaller view finders.
Nikon 70-300 Vr is the best under 1000$ zoom lense. Nice optics, contrast, sharpness, auto focus, handling , built etc.. its nice for wild life/ birding, action/sports.
If i were you i would not buy both the above lenses as of now, i would buy them later on if i am interested in the particular fields ( i own both of them and i hardly use them but on occations ).
I would first buy the Nikon 35mm 1.8, which is a super duper lense fixed prime lense. It has amazing optics, sharpness, contrast, its simple, beautiful for low light, great for indoors and action and simply awesome for every day use. Every snap you take with it comes out beautiful. It gives you freedom from all the other hassels and only lets you concentrate on composing a great snap. It will make u a better photographer as it will make u think and make u move around. The result which it gives after you take all the effort for that one snap, will give u great confidence and immense pleasure.
Further, be smart, rent a lense for a day or two by paying peanuts and later buy the one which satisfies you.
I hope i helped you decide.
Regards
Thanks Amit so much for your inputs.
I am sticking to D7000. I would follow what you said, and not buy a 70-300 as of now, but try to borrow it from someone to try out.
I would also be looking out for the 35mm 1.8 prime you mentioned.
Can you please exaggerate on the choice between 18-55 and 18-105. Looking at your previous posts, it looks like 18-105 is a better choice.
Is it fine if I go for D7000, 18-105, 33mm prime for now, and get the 70-300 at a later time ?
Dear Vicky,
For you i would suggest Nikon 18-55 vr over 18-105 vr. This is because of the following 4 reasons.
Price & Savings
You said you have a contraint on the budget. 18-55 is less than half the price of 18-105 and it delivers almost similar if not better results. You can use the balance extra money to buy the inexpensive and light af-s dx 35mm 1.8 instead. Further 18-55 has the same filter size as 35mm 1.8 which is 52mm. So you can save money by sharing the filters for both lenses.
Weight
Is important if you are a person who wants to keep things as light and simple. Nikon D7000 is already more than 700 gms, adding 420 gms more instead of 250 gms can make things slightly heavy, considering you will keep this lens on your cam for most of the time.
Wasted zoom range
You will be wasting the zoom range from 70 to 105 mm since you are surely going for a 70-300 mm vr in the near future. Missing the zoom range between 55 to 70 is not a worry at all.
Versitility
You said you want to click all kinds of photos and 18-55 is good for it. Its way better than 18-105 for macro photos ( u will like to click macro with this lense as dedicated macro lenses are no doubt amazing but way too expensive ), @ 18 mm you can take landscape photos, @ around 35mm general stuff and streets, @ around 50 mm you can click family and portraits. Also a note that even 70-300 with its zoom and better bokeh can give u good portraits when there is enough space.
Well now coming to 35mm, since it was a wide apperture upto 1.8, it lets in more light. Hence its great for low light or indoor photos, for streets and portraits, also its super sharp and fast with its auto focus even in low lights. But with 1.8 apperture the focus is very narrow so u need to understand and practise it initially.
So i suggest you to go for Nikon d7000 with 18-55 vr and the 35mm 1.8 initially. Infact i would say, initially just a 35mm 1.8 is good enough and 18-55 is actually kind of silly.
But since this is the first time that you are ever stepping into interchangeble lenses and dslr cameras, i would not like you to get tied down with one lense when you have the excitement of geting it all and doing it all which is important in one way to keep the passion flowing ( even i was in the same boat once, now a little wiser ). I would like you to have experience with these two lenses as you will understand that on the field and in testing conditions, which things are the most essential keeping aside all the other makeups and gimicks.
You can buy the 70-300 vr later on, after you borrow it or rent it and try it out in the field . Its the best budjet zoom lense no doubt but starts to gets slightly softer after 200 mm and a bit soft @ 300. It will give u a semi pro / pro lense feel and results though. Also with a 16 mp Nikon d7000, u can always crop the Raw snap and zoom in to make it 600mm as well, by which you always dont have to zoom fully at 300 mm.
All the best, Happy clicking. Hope i helped you choose smart and right.
Regards
Amit
Your suggestions helped me clear a ton of doubts Amit. Thanks for all the help and suggestions.
regards,
Shouvik.
I was a bit worried about the 55 – 70 mm range. But now as you say, if I ignore that issue, I would definitely go for D7000, 18-55, 70-300.
I had never thought about prime lens at this point of time, but since you mentioned it, and also justified the price factor I am into it. Just two more questions, for which I believe I know your answers, but just want to clarify:
1. How if I get a 50mm prime instead of a 38mm. I believe with a crop factor of 1.5, it would translate to 80mm, which may not be a very good focal length for indoor portraits. I was just leaning towards it for the price. I believe that’s the same logic on your end, but please let me know
2. How if I get the 55 – 300 instead of a 70 – 300 ? Again price was the factor that made me consider this. However looking at the softness issues and other reviews of 55 – 300, I think I will stick to 70 – 300. What’s your thoughts on this?
Regards,
Vicky
Dear Vicky,
Sorry for late reply, was on a photo tour.
1. Firstly there is almost no price difference between Af-s Dx 50mm 1.8 and a Af-s Dx 35mm 1.8. However the older 50mm 1.8 is actually less than half the price, than both of the above and it will auto focus with your Nikon d7000. Well the 50mm 1.8 is great for portraits, it has a better bokeh and as you rightly said it will translate to nearly 80mm.
My logic in this regards is simple. You can always make a pic taken from your 35mm 1.8, a 50mm, a 80 mm or even a 105mm snap. How? Simply crop. But you cannot make a 50mm back to a 35mm. Dont worry about the quality as its goin to remain almost intact if you edit/crop RAW images. Nikon D7000 is 16 mp cam, it has more mp than u need and its 14 bit raw has enough punch in it for u to edit/ crop as u wish.
So if you ever want to go for a prime lense go for 35mm, as it can be used for streets, portraits, objects, landscapes to some extent and general stuff… If and only if you are too much into portraits, go for the 50 mm.
Well on the downside 35mm has heavy purple color fringing in highlights and hand held shots below 1/40 shutter speed will be blurr due to the absence of vr. These two problems also aplies to 50 mm, althoug the color fringing is not as much as the 35mm.
2. Go for 70-300 its the best, remember two most important factor for a lense, its optics and auto focus speed. 55-300 is poor in both. U will need the quick af for action, wild life and birding and 70 300 does that superbly. Also 70-300 has the latest Vr 2. 2 stops more than 55-300. Pls dont bother about the missing range between 55 – 70.
Conclusion :-
Nikon D 7000 + Af-s Dx 18-55 3.5-5.6 Vr + Af-s 70-300 4.5-5.6 Vr2 + Afs Dx 35mm 1.8 + 16 gb extreame class 10 + uv filters for lense protection + cleaning kit + bag.
You are done for atleast next 5 yrs. lol..
Cheers.
Happy cliking.
Regards
Amit
Thanks a lot Amit.
You clarified a lot of my doubts. I am now determined and justified in what I am trying to get from this camera and lens.
regards,
Vicky
Dear Nasim,
Thanks a lot for this excellent site. I get to learn a lot from it. I am currently having Nikon DX 51oo, Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55 Vr, Nikkor AF-X DX 35mm/1.8g, Tamron’s AF 18-200 mm. I love to take Nature & Wildlife Photos. Due to restriction in my budget I can’t go for a Prime Telephoto like Nikon 300 or 400 mm.
I am planning for a 70-300mm be it Nikon or Tamron, also thinking of Sigma 50-500 OS, please advice.
Also like to know that ‘will Nikon FX Lenses autofocus on DX 5100?’.
Waiting for your reply
Thanks
Subhajit
Dear Subhajit,
If i may help you.
You already have a 18-200 zoom lense. Why do u want to go for a 70-300. You can always crop an image taken from 18-200 to make it even 300 or 500. All u have to do is take your snaps in RAW and later edit/ crop it.
Well of course a 70 -300 is the best under 1000$ lense, it will out shine the 18-200 in af speed which is crucial for action, birding and wildlife. 70 – 300 also has better optics than a 18- 200.
Well you have to decide is it worth to spend on a zoom lense for an extra 100mm? Also how many lenses would you carry and change, this is may be a factor also if u want to work light and simple.
I have no idea about the sigma 50-500. But i do know a fact that such lenses which have such a zide zoom range has a poor optic in comparison.
All lenses which have the prefix “AF-S” will auto focus on the Nikon D5100. For example :- Af-s 70-300 vr2 4.5-5.6 will also focus on Nikon D5100 though it is an Fx ( for full frame cameras ) lense.
Regards
Amit
Dear Amit,
Thanks a lot for your useful suggestion, all I want is a better reach for wildlife & sharp pictures, unfortunately my budget is not permitting me, could you please suggest me any lens that can be used with tele convertors to get decent pictures.
Any advice will be highly appreciated
Regards
Subhajit
Dear Subhajit,
You need a nice zoom lense or a similar zoom effect for your wildlife photos but most importantly you have a “budget constraint”. Now all i say is you already have some great lenses, a great camera, just see how best you can use the same instead of spending a single penny more.
So I would suggest you to take the wildlife, birding and action/sports photos with your tamron 18-200 at max zoom of 200mm or 180mm if 200mm is a bit soft. Then you later simply crop the images on your computer, crop as much as u wish. By doing so you can get a equivalent zoom of 300mm, 500mm, 800mm or even a 1000mm and most importantly you dont spend a single penny.
Now to do the above you must make sure you take your images in RAW format. Secondly, after doing so, see how much has the quality really been impacted ( i guess it will not be much). You have a Nikon D5100 if i am not wrong, well nikon d5100 has 16 mege pixels, now that is enough pixcels for you to crop and edit when you take your snaps in Raw ( experiment it in jpeg also but compare both and choose the best ).
Now if you have already done the above excersice and if you are not happy with it, then i would suggest you to blindly go in for the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 vr. Its the best budget lense you have at its price and range, surely better than a sigma or a tamron.
Now further, if you have a budget constraint to buy a new 70-300, then try buying the lense second hand from a known/trusted source after u have personally tested it on the field and r assured about the condition of the lense. Just go for it.
Now the problem is worse if you are not finding a second hand 70-300 lense, then at this point i would like to ask you, how important is the tamron 18-200 for you ? Yes, i am suggesting you sell the lense and buy the Nikon 70-300 by arranging some more cash. Trust me you wont regret it because you already have the entire zoom range from 18 to 300. Missing the zoom range between 55 to 70 is absolutely no big deal and it will have no impact what so ever. You can try it out with the the 18-200 to see the difference between 55 to 70 if you want.
Yes you will loose the convinience of a all in one 18-200 and to fill its shoes you will have to frequently switch if need be between 18-55 and 70-300, but whats the big deal, you have 3 or 4 lenses any which way so you will have to carry and switch. The combined result of a 18-55 and the 70-300 wont disapoint you at all. Trust me.
Coming to Tele Converters,
A tele converter will give you superb zoom, a 2x for example will make a 200mm into a 400mm and u dont have a buy a super zoom expensive lense.
But it has several cons as well as follows :-
Slows downthe auto focus – the 18-200 af is already bit on a slower side in comparison with the 70-300 and a tc will slow it down futher. Quick af is crucial for wildlife, action/sports and birding.
Less light/ narrow apperture – a tc wont allow much light in. You can no longer work with a app of 4 or 3 or 4.5 and this will impact your depth of field / focus. Also when the light is lower at the time of a beautiful sun set, you will have to go for a higher iso as a compensation and hense resulting in more noise.
Camera shake – as the zoom is more, the chance of a camera shake is also doubled and your exsisting vr in the lense is not built for such a zoom range.
Sharpness/optic and image quality – a snap taken form a 70-300 or a 18-200 with out tc will be much sharper and of a better quality when compared with a shot taken from 18-200 with tc.
So pls dont go for a tele converter.
It would be great to use a tc on a fast lense like a nikon 70-200 2.8 vr2 or similar fast lenses , but such lenses are way too expensive.
Conclusion :-
Crop for more zoom, be it 18-200 or tomoro even a 70-300.
Nikon 70-300 any day over a third party lense if the budjet permits you.
Kindly Note :- Tomoro even if the world famous pro photographer like Steve McCurry suggests you to buy a lense, always rent or borrow the lense and try it on the field for a day of 2 before you actually buy. Be smart.
I hope my sugessions have helped you.
Regards,
Amit
SIR I HAVE NIKON d5100 N I AM CONSIDERING TO BUY A LENS
WHICH ONE IS BETTER 70-300MM OR 55-300MM OR SIGMA 70-300
Get the Nikon 70-300mm.
Hi Nasim,
Before I want to continue I would like to thank you fro your fantastic website!
At the moment I have a D60 with the kit 18-55 VR, 35mm f1.8 and the 70-300 AF (which doesn’t auto focus on my D60 because of it not having a motor). I have found that my current 70-300 isn’t great especially when it comes to chromatic aberration.
I am looking to get the D7000 and possibly keeping or selling my D60 (although it is worthless now) and upgrade my 70-300 to the one discussed in this article. I was also looking at the 55-300 and the 28-300. From what it seems would you recommend the 70-300 VR??
Thanks in advance!
Mik
Mik, the new 70-300mm is better than the screw-drive motor 70-300mm version. If I were you, I would get the D7000 and the 70-300mm for the reach. Don’t go for the 28-300mm, since it does not have the same reach as the 70-300mm at short distances (due to focus breathing).
What about the 55-300??
Is my D60 worth keeping as a spare though? or get the little I can for it?
Thanks again!
Another option could be to keep the D60 as a backup as well as the AF 70-300 I have and get the D7000 and see how the lens runs on it?
Your advice is most appreciated!
Also on another note was wondering about the 10-24mm?
Thanks
Dear Nasim,
I became interested in photography around one year ago, so I’m still a novice, I would say.
My trusted D3100 was recently stolen, along with my 35 1,8G and 18-200 VR (first lens I bought after the kit lens) and other items.
I have replaced it with the D5100, and so far the 35 1,8G (a wonderful lens).
Actually I still have my 18-55 kit lens from the D3100, but I tend rarely to use it.
While I was certainly satisfied with the versatility and general IQ of the 18-200, I could of course immediately tell the difference when using the 35 1,8G (I just love that lens). I don’t expect such a profound difference on a zoom such as the 70-300, but is there a noticeable difference between the 18-200 and the 70-300?
I also tended to use the 18-20 for “macro” work (not extreme macro, but generaly flowers), how would the 70-300 compare in that regard? Of course, I know a dedicated macro lens is far preferable, but I don’t see that in my budget at the moment. The 18-20 focused a lot closer than the 70-300 (to me it seems better suited for macro work in that regard..?), but I don’t see it as a major issue, as I doubt I’ll be doing extreme macro. There’s anyway 16,2 mp to crop from in the D5100.
While the 18-200 had great versatility, I soon realized I always brought a small bag with a lens or two and flash anyway, so the great focal range is not that important for me after all.
If buying the 70-300, my kit would consist of the D5100, 12-24 F4G, 35 1,8G and the 70-300 (+ the rarely used 18-55 kit lens). To me, this seems a good lens collection on my not too extravagant budget (great lenses like the 70-200 2,8 VRII and the likes just seem to costly and also heavy for me at the moment).
My only issue would be if the 70-300 performs at least equaly well (or preferably better) than the 18-200 for “amateur” macro work? I’m also considering the 55-300, which seems to be optically comparable (and cheaper), but autofocus speed is somewhat putting me off it, while I’m not so sure I really would miss that extra focal range.
With regards,
Terje
Hi Terje,
The 18-200, a great lens but I still prefer the 70-300 in term of value and as its give good sharpness and quick focusing but challenging with low light situation.
Don’t expect too much from the all rounder lens like 18-200 and much more expensive lens.
Currently I am using the 50 1.8D, 18-105, 70-300 and 105 2.8 micro with my d7000 and this is only my personal opinion.
Regards
Raymond/
I have plan to buy a tele lens for shooting birds and objects in far distance and now considering 55-300 for my D90. Do you, folks, think it is a good choice or better upgrade to 70-300 as I dont use tele lens so often and dont want to spend much money for it?
Hi Nasim,
I am new to the SLR photography world. Recently I have purchased a NIKON D5100 with a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. I want to know if I can go for a AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II/14E with the same. What will be the effects.
Tushar
Hi. I used to have Kenko TC 1,5x with this Nikkor 70-300 VR and it worked (autofocused) ok, even @ 300mm.
Dear Nasim,
I am hoping to buy a 70-300 mm f4.5-5.6G lens and I would like to know what filter types & brands (B+W F-Pro MRC/Hoya) would you recommend with this.
Thanks,
Gayan
Hello Nasim,
Thanks so much for your review of this lens, and for all the other excellent information on your site. I learn a very great deal from you.
This lens just bowls me over. I bought it after reading your review in particular, and I couldn’t be happier with it.
I’m an amateur photographer, still figuring out my D7000. I’ve taken some bird photos with the 70-300mm that amaze me — not perfect (I still have a lot to learn), but still very crisp and balanced. Best lens I’ve bought so far.
Dear Nasim,
I’m a proud owner of the AFS 300mm F4 lens which is incredible. I also have the 80-200 AF lens which is great other than some focus issues at close distances.
However, in game reserves one is photographing from inside a car and, with motor running and no VR on these lenses (query – does VR help with this type of vibration?), getting crisp/sharp images is problematical. So, I was considering the 70-300 lens but I’m worried that, in comparison to the other 2 lens, I’ll be dissapointed at the results.
Additionally, the best time for game viewing and photography is early morning and late afternoon when the sun is less harsh – which leads me to wonder about the (claimed) AF problems with the 70-300 lens under low light conditions.
The other alternative is the 70-200 F2.8, probably with a TC1.7 (for some skittish animals the 300 F4 itself is not long enough anyway) when required. But if I can save a few $ and still be a ‘happy camper’, then that would please me (and my pocket).
Otherwise I don’t see any other alternatives, especially in light of the scarcity of (affordable) VR telephoto lenses available from Nikon.
Cameras used are D40X and D90 (and waiting for the D400 if it has better high ISO noise)
Your advice/suggestions would be warmly apreciated as are your informative reviews.
Kind regards,
Antony
Antony, you will be disappointed with the 70-300mm after your 300mm f/4. Why don’t you use a faster shutter speed instead? VR definitely helps, but it requires some skill when shooting at slow shutter speeds – you will have to let the lens stabilize before taking a picture.
The 70-200mm + TC 1.7 is a nice combo, but won’t give you the same reach as the 300mm + TC 1.4.
Dear Nasim,
Thank you for your rapid response.
Unfortunately using faster shutter speeds in low light will result in unacceptably high ISO settings (from a noise standpoint), especially with the F Stop limitation of the 300mm F4.
I actually have a Kenko 1.4 TC which I purchased as it’s compatible with the 80-200 F2.8 AF lens. Have not tried it on the 300 F4 handheld though. I will be purchasing the Nikon TC1.7 for the 300mm for the extra reach. The combination seems to get good reviews on various sites.
The idea behind the AFS 70-200 was to have a zoom with VR as a replacement for the 80-200 for close shots or with a 1.4/1.7 TC as a 280/340mm with VR at similar F Stop to the 300mm F4
Your comments on VR and slow shutter speeds is an eye opener – have not used a VR lens before and had thought that VR was some form of panacea but seems not to be the case. The other problem with VR is that it’s probably the most susceptible to failure in a lens so I guess best avoided if at all possible.
Thanks for the advice! I’ll avoid the 70-300 mm and either consider the 70-200 or look at primes in that range.
Dear Nasim,
Your review is detailed enough to clear some of my questions.
I have one question that I cannot answer.
Compared with Sigma 50-150, 2.8 (my previous lens which now is broken :( ) can you tell me the difference in sharpness and AF speed? I know I can’t compare the zoom range, but I want to complete the range with Nikon 24-85 / Sigma 17-70 / Sigma 24-70 (36-105 on DX) or Tokina 17- 35, I am not sure yet.
Best regards,
Alexandru
Alex, unfortunately, I have not tried the Sigma 50-150, so I cannot speak for its performance.
Thanks anyway :).
I have to decide :).