Is the reasonable quality and nice zoom range worth the trade off for slow aperture and dust sucking capacity while zooming? Every use one I considered has dust on the inside so the lens is not all that well sealed so this is a concern for me. And the the slow aperture means low light shooting could be problematic even w/ VR if subject moves. What are your experiences? Am I think through this too much?
FX AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens?
- Thread starter mjcmt
- Start date
Any zoom lens in that price range is going to have similar max aperture. Fixed length designs are preferable and minimize the potential for pulling in dust. Both problems solved with something like a 120-300mm 2.8. But it doesn't come cheap. Another possibility is to pick up a used Sigma 100-300mm f4. Constant max aperture over the range and fixed barrel length with excellent IQ and build quality but no VR. Now out of production so can only be had used and at well under a thousand USD. I started my wildlife shooting with one of them on a D300. It's a nice lens.
Thanks Dan. I'm interested in Nikon lenses and particular experiences with the one I mentioned.
Any extending zoom will have to suck air, or it can't extend.
This includes the Canon 70-200/2.8 R lens, which is an extending zoom.
This includes the Canon 70-200/2.8 R lens, which is an extending zoom.
Photography is all about trade-offs, so only you can decide what is important to you when buying a lens. Yes, it is not a fast lens, but it is affordable and has the best IQ from any of Nikon's 70-300 zoom lenses. And you are correct that VR is not going to help with moving subjects. But, what are your options to address these issues? You can buy a 70-200 f/4 or F/2.8, but then size and price get bigger. Do you mind carrying larger glass? Do you have the budget for it? Regarding dust, I would concur with ac12 in the post above.
--Ken
--Ken
I absolutely LOVE my iNikon 80-400ED VR AF-S, f4.5-5.6. Focusing is relatively fast on my D850 and D5. Sharp! Never noticed a dust problem, even in Africa. And a very nice zoom to 400mm. IMHO this lens is very under rated.
Only YOU can determine if you can live with the trade off.
As for being slow.
Until we have a camera with GOOD HIGH ISO (25600+) performance . . .
A f/5.6 zoom is really a day-time lens. Not a night time/low light lens.
I shoot night high school field games. I would love to be able to shoot a light f/5.6 zoom. But then I would be up at ISO 25600.
Old sayings, "In LOW light, FAST glass wins." And "you have to pay to play."
If you are shooting moving subjects in low light, your only option is the big, heavy, expensive 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, and 400/2.8.
So, how much do you shoot in low light? And is that a critical part of your shooting?
IOW, is it worth the cost (size, weight and $$$$) to get the faster speed? You have to make that decision.
As for dust sucking. ALL extending zooms suck air to extend. If they did not suck air, the vacuum created would prevent the lens from extending much, if at all. Many high end zooms have been and are moving to extending design, to store in a smaller space, and advertise as being small.
The Nikon 24-120, 80-400 and 200-500, the Canon 70-200/2.8 R, and the Olympus 12-40/2.8 and 12-100/4 lenses are higher end extending zooms.
I have the lens in addition to the ones that I mentioned above. I have used it with my D750 and have enjoyed using it. I have not peeped to see if any dust is in the lens as I have not seen anything show up on my images. For a compact zoom, it has been a decent performer, and an upgrade from my old 70-300 VR lens. This is not the lens I would choose if I needed fast glass when, for example, shooting in low light. But it is a great lens, especially for the price. Read Thom Hogan's review of it if you want a more detailed analysis.
--Ken
I've had mine for two years now and use it mainly with the D750. I can't say I've noticed any particular problems with dust by comparison with other extending zooms or the previous version of this lens. The pic of SE Lakeland that I put into the Landscapes etc thread yesterday was taken with it. It is an improvement over the previous model and was good enough for me to get it instead of the 70-200 f4, especially with the extra reach, but I still sometimes covet that lens. The 70-200 f4 might give you the lower light performance that you want but you'll pay more for it. It doesn't extend when zooming either, so that would address your dust concerns too.
I believe there may be a thread of images for this lens in the forum. To sum up my opinion, it is a great lens if your budget is limited. It is also a great lens if you need something compact. It is a fast focusing lens, and the IQ is not much of a compromise if used within its shooting envelope. It is an improvement over all of the prior versions, and is not really a compromise with the exception of its maximum aperture. I do have lenses that are faster and produce somewhat better IQ, but they are more expensive and heavier. Any downsides of this lens would mostly be errors of omission rather than errors of commission. Hopefully that helps put it in perspective.
--Ken
--Ken
The image - nothing special - but
the crop! This P-E zoom, at 300mm, wide open, ISO 8000, 1/2000. The Z7 body. Very fast and reliable AF. Even at 5.6, the combo delivers corner-to-corner amazing sharpness.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I have the lens and it’s great for all the reasons mentioned for all the uses it has its strengths in. Daytime shooting, light, sharp.
it is great on the DSLRs that support it and on the Z system cameras as well. It is probably the fastest focusing and sharpest 70-300 I’ve ever used
my Nikon 300/4E PF bests it, but not by much.
This flickr album will give you some examples.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/gryphon1911/0Tw50t
it is great on the DSLRs that support it and on the Z system cameras as well. It is probably the fastest focusing and sharpest 70-300 I’ve ever used
my Nikon 300/4E PF bests it, but not by much.
This flickr album will give you some examples.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/gryphon1911/0Tw50t
I've never felt much of a need for reach, but over time the midrange zooms I've owned have become steadily shorter (from the 16-85 on DX to the 24-85, and now the Z 24-70). So I rented this lens for a week and was pretty impressed with it, but I wasn't convinced I'd want to be taking the longer lens around and swapping lenses, so I gave the Z 24-200 some serious consideration. But then the 70-300 went on sale for an incredible $399, and that pretty much decided it for me.
It just arrived today, and for the price I don't care if it sucks dust or is slow-ish. This could be the best deal I've gotten on a new lens. I'll post pics as I manage to get out with it.
It just arrived today, and for the price I don't care if it sucks dust or is slow-ish. This could be the best deal I've gotten on a new lens. I'll post pics as I manage to get out with it.
I use it and enjoy it very much. I have never checked to see if there is dust inside. The image quality from it is very good.
I used one with a Z7 and it was great. I never noticed any dust.
First day out with the lens. These are small versions via SnapBridge to my phone, so apologies if the quality is not up to par. But I wouldn’t have been able to get these shots without this lens. Pleased with it so far.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
