FX AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens?

[mjcmt]

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?

 

[drr1531]

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.

 

[mjcmt]

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.

 

[ac12]

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.

 

[Replytoken]

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

 

[Butlerkid]

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.

 

[ac12]

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?

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.

 

[mjcmt]

So I see no one has any experiences w/ this lens. I'm surprised, but maybe others have the same concerns.

 

[Replytoken]

So I see no one has any experiences w/ this lens. I'm surprised, but maybe others have the same concerns.

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

 

[warth man]

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.

 

[Replytoken]

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