opinions on Nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6

**Apoc112** · 04-01-2006, 07:12 PM

i'm looking for a relatively low cost telephoto lens and i was a bit surprised that the nikon 70-300 was one of the cheapest ones out there. i know a camera is only as good as the glass in front of it, but i'm on a small budget because it's only a hobby for me... any opinions on this lens or suggestions for similar ones (tamron, sigma, tokina)?

**Piece** · 04-01-2006, 08:39 PM

are you talking about the G series lens or the ED lens? I hear great things about the ED one but not so great about the G series one. Either way, if your on a budget the G series is cheap...

**Apoc112** · 04-01-2006, 09:33 PM

i was referring to the G series... i see them new and like new on ebay for ~$120, so of course i don't expect them to be top-product, but what kind of drawbacks make a lens bad to you guys? i don't really know my way around lenses well enough... i doubt i would know the difference

**Piece** · 04-01-2006, 10:49 PM

it'll perform about like your 18-55 just longer and slower. :P drawbacks are that it's slow on the autofocus and isnt the sharpest piece of glass in nikons arsenal. honestly, though, i know a ton of people who have it and love it. it really depends on how critical you are on your equipment.

**ScottL** · 04-02-2006, 06:04 AM

Like Piece says, it will all come down to how critical you are. By some, less critical, the lens is typically OK. But to someone who has used higher end glass, it would not be a good lens to their standards.

That is why I feel you may get mixed opinions here on the forums.

If you are content with the quality of your 18-55mm, then I would say you will be content with the quality of the 70-300mm.

The one main downfall of cheaper glass is its performance in low light. Being this is a f5.6 on the long end. It will be very hard to get shots in dimly lit situations.

Maybe Cadwell (Glenn) can suggest other "Budget" lenses that you may be either as happy, or more happy with.

**Apoc112** · 04-03-2006, 06:56 AM

i don't think i would be overly critical of the lens at this point in my photography.... if a shot turns out bad for whatever reason, i feel like my inexperience is to blame, so a second-rate lens may suit me alright. i would like to hear of any comparable substitutes if anyone here has experience with them (especially if there's a 3rd party lens in the same price range that's a little faster)

**Cadwell** · 04-03-2006, 07:06 AM

With telephoto zooms you pretty much get what you pay for. I can't think of any lens 300m lens (3rd party or otherwise) that's much good for $120.

**Richard Peters** · 04-04-2006, 04:27 AM

When I first started out in photography I used both the G and the ED versions as I borrowed and ED one from a friend. If you can stretch for the ED it is worth it as it is far far better built than the G which feels very cheap and like it would break extremely easily.

I'd ty and get hold of the ED second hand, not only is it built better but it produces better images too.