Thanks for all the input, guys. Gobuster, good photo but... as already mentioned the IF-ED VR version is supposed to be very good, and I'd be happy with results like yours. I only see a little CA along the edge of the rear legs. And thanks to fstop22 for the price tip on refurb. I don't mind refurb or gray market or even used if the glass is good. The "sharpness issues at the higher zoom ranges" is my real concern. I'm already covered from about 7mm (yes, 7!) to 200mm. I want to be able to reach out and count nose hairs at 100 feet. :) So I'm not really tied to the 70-300. I'm thinking also about the (supposed to be fab) Big Sigma, or a few others. This is just a case where cheap was not good.

I find it hard to beleive , i have the 70-300VR11and it is as good as all the write up' say it is it's tack sharp , and thom hogan say's its much better than it should be for the price . He even goes on to say the optics are comparable to the $1600 nikon in the same range . The only thing is its not built as strong as the one that cost much more , or water and dust resisent . But if you dont bang it around its a great lens . Mine does not creep it stays where you set it . You must have got one made on friday. Or are you using it set on action when you should be Using normal . And turnit off when using a tripod . Like isay mine is tack sharp .

I recently purchased a Nikon AF Nikkor70-210mm 1:4-5.6 lens from a fellow Hog and I'm loving it. Heavy duty metal lens. Not great in low light, some CA at longer lengths, and my neutered D3100 won't auto focus, but I can live with all that. And that is NOT the lens I'm going to gripe about.

I still wanted a little more reach, so I looked into the Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 G. I assumed the optics would be very similar, and I could tolerate the mostly plastic build to keep cost down. Ken Rockwell gives it a fairly good review as "the next step above your 55-200mm kit lens", and says it's a good lens for a low price.

Let me say at this point that it's possible I got the bad apple in the bushel. If this is the case, I don't want to sort through a bunch of lenses (at $32 round trip shipping each) looking for the good one. I have other Nikon lenses made in China and Thailand that outperform the 70-300, so I don't blame the Chinese either.

In brief, I cannot get sharp (enough) focus at any length. My kit lenses do better. With no vibration reduction, the light weight of this lens works against it. (But the VR version is 3 times the cost.) I cannot recommend it for hand-held. It's inefficient T factor (light transmission) requires wide settings along with high ISO's and slow shutter. Lens creep is significant, especially for a twist zoom. In one case, I got it dialed in, then it zoomed itself in from 135 to 100mm before I got the shot off. My push-pull 70-200 does better. Chromatic abberation (blue fringing) is terrible at anything longer than 200mm. My "entry level" D3100 needs good glass out front, and this one is not it. :(

My only disappointment out of 6 Nikon lenses. Cheap is not always a good thing. I'll go back to saving up my nickels for the $1K real deal. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

I just recently bought this lens and have to agree, haven't got any sharp pics at 300mm with it. I've tried autofocusing with both live view and with the viewfinder. My Nikkor 55-300 AFS-VR performs better on a DX or even vignetting on an FX camera. This lens is very heavy as well, compared to the 55-300mm. The problem with the 70-300 seems to be back focusing. I will try to see if I can compensate for it by focusing a little in front of the subject and raising my f stop to get a better depth of field. Might also try to fine tune the lens on the D7000, but don't have too much hope for that correcting the problem. Maybe the problem is that the 70-300mm lenses on ebay, etc., are there because they don't achieve sharp focus. Attached is a pic of a fairly large robin at about 40 ft. Pretty soft throughout. The best of about 20 pics I took.