AF-S NIKKOR 70-300MM 4.5-5.6 VR LENS (Page 2): I'm wondering if there's a mix up about this P lens. There is, for example, an inferior lens, as you write, with an f6.3 at the telephoto...

Yorkshirelad

d3200prime wrote:

I have seen some tout the AF-P version of this len... (show quote)

I'm wondering if there's a mix up about this P lens. There is, for example, an inferior lens, as you write, with an f6.3 at the telephoto end, that sells for a cheap price. But the P series, with f5.6 on the long end, that replaced the AF-S, full frame, is currently listed at Adorama (and probably B&H) for $595.00. The DX version is several hundred dollars cheaper. You might be correct about checking to see that the P series is compatible with the camera the OP intends to use it with.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

I have the af-s with the 5.6 at the long end. It replaced the af-p kit lens with 6.3 at the long end. I really really like the new lens, and it performs head and shoulders beyond the kit lens. You can click on my flickr link below to see some results. I bought this lens and used it for about 6 months on my D3400 before I found a good deal on a slightly used D7500. It performs even better on my D7500. I find I am looking for additional reach, but not necessarily better quality in my next lens. If I could get the kind of IQ from a 150-600 or a 200-500 I would be VERY happy.

BTW, I paid just at $300 for my used copy at Roberts Camera in Indianapolis

Best of luck

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

swartfort wrote:

I have the af-s with the 5.6 at the long end. It ... (show quote)

I took a look at your flickr images and they are a good demo of the lens! If the new "P" version really is that much better, as the reviews claim, MERCY!

d3200prime

Yorkshirelad wrote:

I'm wondering if there's a mix up about this P lens. There is, for example, an inferior lens, as you write, with an f6.3 at the telephoto end, that sells for a cheap price. But the P series, with f5.6 on the long end, that replaced the AF-S, full frame, is currently listed at Adorama (and probably B&H) for $595.00. The DX version is several hundred dollars cheaper. You might be correct about checking to see that the P series is compatible with the camera the OP intends to use it with.

Yes, I stand corrected. So, now you have gone and given me a GAS attack.....lol! I may change to this lens when I can justify the extra cost and advantage over mine. Merry Christmas!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I have this lens and am satisfied with it on my D7100. As Gene says, it's a little soft past about 200mm, but if you the light to work with, stopping down a couple of stops makes a big improvement. I'll probably upgrade some day, but it's a good size and weight, and I rarely shoot at the long end anyway.

Andy

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

ppkwhat wrote:

OZMOND, I have this lens for several years now, having used it on my old Nikon D-80 and recently on my D-300 that I use as backup to my D-750. I find it a very useful lens, not heavy and quite sharp all all zoom settings.

Below is a link to a photo I posted yesterday.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-568934-1.html

I do not think the sample photo' does enough credit to the quality of the lens. The sample (as shown) could easily have been taken with a 'phone camera).

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Here are a couple of shots using the lens in 2012. No1. Mother of the Groom ..1/180 @f/7 ..220mm focal length.... ISO 200 ...No. 2. Bride...1/250. @ f/9...200mm focal length...ISO 200 Camera was a Fuji S5 Pro.

OZMON Loc: WIGAN UK

TO RICH1939, I am using a nikon d3300 camera.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

d3200prime wrote:

I have seen some tout the AF-P version of this len... (show quote)

We're talking about the FX version...yes avoid the el cheapo version....Nikon makes many variations in the 70-300 range....

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I've been using the 70-300 in whatever version for about10 +/- years. Discovered it for chasing dragon flies - it focuses fast, its light enough for quick handling and its sharp, at least for what I was shooting. Its also good for birds on the wing. I used it mostly with the D300 and now the D500

Techrod

I would stretch for the new AFP version even if good deals can be had on the old. The optics are far superior. Even if you have a DX camera I would get the FX version of the 70-300mm AFP as it has a better build including weather-sealing, 9 blades, metal mount and VR switch on the lens. Of course, it's twice the price and a little heavier.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I have owned this lens for many years. Although I also own some very big glass Nikon 200-400mm f4 and Nikon 600mm) I have found that the 70-300 is a fine sharp lens. It is a bit slow when fully zoomed out but if you use it in good light it will deliver quality images without breaking the bank. If bigger and longer glass is not in your budget then I would recommend this lens.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

OZMON wrote:

TO RICH1939, I am using a nikon d3300 camera.

In the link to Thom's review of the "Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 AF-P VR DX" he recommended that particular variation for your camera, but you will have to have the latest firmware installed. At $396, if it were me I'd ask myself if I ever intended to up grade the camera to a full frame one. If the answer was yes, then the FX version for $200 more would be the choice. Otherwise, based on the review, save the $200

danoliver Loc: South Central Kentucky

OZMON wrote:

I am thinking of buying this lens, has anyone got any experience with this lens, and is it any good.
I don't have a good zoom lens which I sometimes find I need.

My opinion: B&H has on sale a Sigma 70-200 2.8 for $1079 that I bought for my Nikon, has several features on it. It does a fine job, whereas new Nikon 70-200 2.8 is about $2300. You might want to take a look at it. DanOliver

Quixote Loc: Houston, Texas

I use mine for marine and industrial photography as well as to document mechanical operations and projects. I've been quite pleased with it.