Nikon 70-300mm ƒ/4.5-5.6G AF-S ED-IF VR (HD)

[HRDINA1]

Thanks for the review!

[MrPacMe]

EPIC FAIL?? :(

[superkiwizorro]

@MrPacMe lol yessir, EPIC FAIL!!

[superkiwizorro]

@fttp21 nikon 20-35mm 2.8D, 35-70mm 2.8D, and 80-200mm 2.8D are all commercial grade lenses going for under a grand each. they easily outperform those lenses you listed.

[lizzien14]

Can you use this lens on Nikon D3100

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Ohh... Uhm... Uhh... We don't know... How about watching the video again?

[Moemay9]

I would like to hear from someone who have used both the 18-200mm vr and the 70-300mm vr. Does the 70mm-300mm vr have better image quailty than the 18-200mmvr, around the 70-200mm range?? thanks

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Only one good news from each lens.

70-300mm VR does a microscopic better job at 200mm than 18-200mm VR.

18-200mm VR does a microscopic better job at 70mm than 70-300mm VR.

They have the same crappy results between 85mm and 180mm.

[Moemay9]

@Lilkiwiguy87 how about this for a curveball, getting the fuji HS20 for the same price as the 70-300mm vr lens, it weight about the same, about the same image quailty (may be even better than the 70-300mm vr) keep it as a back up and is also good for macro, and there is no need to change lens. The only thing I hate is the dinky little veiw finder.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

You only need one camera. Having a lens is a better investment than a point & shoot camera that will be worthless in a couple of years. You'll still get money back after selling the lens but maybe 5 bucks for the Fuji. However, the question remains up to you to decide.

[Moemay9]

I thinks this is still better than the 55-200 and the 55-300, the 2.8s are too expensive and heavy for me to carry. I may just get one and use it for day time and keep it at f8 most of the time.

[Wes2299]

@Moemay9 Well, duh. These lenses are really ever used in daytime or with adequate lighting. It's possible to use these in average lighting but have fun shooting at high ISO.

[fcpoker]

Crap i wam/am going to buy this lens. i found all 2.8 being 200 $ more, if this gets 2/10 8,8 wtf am i supposed to do? i am amateur, is this such a bad lens?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

For around the same price, take a look at 80-200mm ƒ/2.8D AF ED (not AF-S one).

[aki822]

i was thinking of getting this one for my D90, but now im kinda hesitant, a friend of mine has the 80-200/2.8 and its amazing, but god its heavy, so what would be a good lens between the 70-300 and the 80-200 ?? a reply would be greatly appreciated.. much thanks

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Unfortunately, there's no lens to cover the gap between these two. With an exception for really old 75-300mm ƒ/4.5-5.6 AF, where the image quality is nowhere close to these two. Used 80-200mm ƒ/2.8D AF ED's are selling for almost the same price of a new 70-300mm VR. The 80-200mm has much better image quality.

[bratvlad]

My cheaper alternative is the Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED Nikkor Lens. I believe its better alternative than the AF...G version.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Uh, yeah, we suggested that lens alternative in this video.

[rres2]

Get the 70-300 i recomend it over the 55-200 i own one and im about to get this one

[azngamefreak46]

should i buy this or the 5-200mm?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

"5-200mm" does not exist.

[azngamefreak46]

@Lilkiwiguy87 I mean 55-200? sorry typo so which one? i need help. 

[Lilkiwiguy87]

We have no idea.  The decision is up to you.

[13965082]

@azngamefreak46

depends if u run DX of FX i guess.

55-200 is DX lens and would somewhat be a waste if u use it on an FX.

but its completely up to u.

[pinoykillah18]

@azngamefreak46 this is better! unless u buy the 70-200mm VR f2.8 thats the best

[rres2]

@azngamefreak46 dont get the 55-200 get this one if you have the cash and also dont take my word but it is just my 2 cents

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Well, 55-200mm VR and 70-300mm VR both got 2 / 10 rating.

...must be quite difficult to decide, heh.

[kizamitsuki72]

I own this lens. It's not a big performer neither an "epic fail" considering its price. Mounted on a DX body you have a 450 mm focal length! You can do a lot of things with it at an interesting price. You have been a bit too much severe on your judgment. It's cheap, light, long. All summed up i like this lens.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Do we expect you to agree with out reviews? No.

[kizamitsuki72]

@Lilkiwiguy87

Disable the comments if you don't like who disagrees.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Oh, we allow dis/agreements, as long as the commenters speak with respect.

[kizamitsuki72]

@Lilkiwiguy87

I did respect. I like the style of your reviews, really, but definetly this lens is not an 'epic fail'.

slrgear.com/reviews/showproduc­t.php/product/992/cat/13

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Oh, relax, you are fine. In case you have not noticed, a great deal of people do not understand those silly charts and graphs with fictional numbers that do not make any sense at all. They can easily understand with the help of photographic evidences that are shown in the video. Pictures speak louder than words and numbers. Well, thanks for the link, maybe technical engineers will find it more useful than the obvious.

[kizamitsuki72]

@Lilkiwiguy87

Lol i give up. The good point is we both love Nikon in a different... optic :-)

[DEVIMON111213]

why should I get f2.8 when Im always shooting at around f5.6 to f8... f2.8 is very heavy.. costly and gives me wrist pain.. after 1 hour.. 70-300 f4.5 is a very great lens... in my opinion

[nicholas9916]

@DEVIMON111213 Compare image quality of a 70-200mm f2.8 VR II at f5.6 with this at 5.6 and see the difference

[superkiwizorro]

@nicholas9916 and hes 30 but complained about 2.8 lenses being "heavy"...

[key00992233]

Thanks for the awesome reviews.... Learning a lot about lenses thanks to you. :)

[umiseaz]

what is meaning of sealed again dust and moisture  ?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

The lens is protected against risks of damaging that is caused by making contact with the water drips and / or dust.

[chopper82p]

this lens is great. i dont care what you think, compared to the 70-200 2.8 quality is better but for the price its a great lens.

[FinlandApollo]

@chopper82p Quality in this lens is better than 70-200mm f2.8? You must be joking or you are just blind! The Difference is HUGE and 70-200mm f2.8 is way better.

[LBJBasketball23]

is it compatible with d90?



[Lilkiwiguy87]

Watch the video again, your answer is there.

[13vafanculo]

@LBJBasketball23 maybe

[MrRonikon]

If this is a poor's man telephoto-zoom lens, why would you attached it to a Nikon D3 camera?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Because you can.

[OceanCold]

Is the sharness on the old version of this lens the same?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

No, worse. The AF version is useable from 100mm to 200mm at F/8.0 (DX format, up to F/16 on FX format).

[OceanCold]

@Lilkiwiguy87 In the sharpness chart you send me it says they both perform the same... is the chart wrong?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Ah, a typo. We'll update it when after testing a couple of new Nikkors in the near future. Thanks.

[bbtel]

Would you suggest the 70-200 2.8 Vr? My D200 is ready to retire and I am ready to invest in another Nikon. D300 or D700 as the next step up? Any recommendations?

I enjoy your productions and respect your advice.

thx

bb

[Lilkiwiguy87]

A 70-200mm VR, as an expensive alternative, yes. The 80-200mm ƒ/2.8D AF ED (non-AF-S one) will do, too.

No need to upgrade the camera if it's still working just fine.

[fhqwghads]

Wow what a garbage lens. Thanks for the heads up. I steer clear of variable aperture lenses anyway, but this summarizes in clear terms why they are generally not good quality lenses. You'd think a company like Nikon, who's known for making excellent photography gear, would have never let something like this out of the door.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Well, hence it is a kit lens, Nikon just throw it in then hope people will get away with it.

[andypotter3]

This is a sharp lens (not wide open) and has a good reach, I don't understand the "Not compatible with any TC's") I shoot this lens with a 1.4 Tele all the time?? It auto focuses ect ect may not be as sharp but give me extra reach if needed. My honest opinion on this lens would be if you don't have £1700 to spend on a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII then this is a good compromise but as long as you understand you wont be getting the best you could get.

Why no TC's??

[Lilkiwiguy87]

According to 70-300mm ƒ/4.5-5.6G AF-S ED-IF VR user's manual, on page 22, it states very clearly:

"13. Incompatible accessories:

• Teleconverters (all models)

• Auto Ring BR-4 and all models of Auto Extension Ring PK, K Ring and Bellows focusing attachment.

Other accessories may not be suitable for use with this lens. For details, carefully read your accessories instruction manual."

[andypotter3]

@Lilkiwiguy87

So you have not actually tried one on this lens? I used a Kenko 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300 and shot a hole day with it yesterday with NO issues what so ever (other than a reduction in image quality). Test it yourself, after all I though that's what you did when reviewing a lens??

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Every time when we are about to start reviewing a lens, we sit down and read the user's manual. It states this lens does not accept TC's. There it is, solid fact, okay, and we moved on. We only have Nikon TC's.

[andypotter3]

@Lilkiwiguy87

Don't you think it maybe important to note though? Instead of simply saying "No TC'S"?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

The video already said that because the manual said so.

[Jmozzari]

@andypotter3 why are you arguing with him over a fact?? manual said NO TC! period! in case you dont realize, if something goes wrong with your TC on the lens, nikon wont fix it for free because you didnt follow the manual's instructions about no TC. so thats a repair you gotta pay

[Lilkiwiguy87]

*chuckles*

Breathe, James, breathe.

Yes, you got it right: if a third party teleconverter cause malfunction to the lens and / or camera, it will void Nikon's warranty. The precautions in the user's manual are also warning signs to warn everyone if they do otherwise, there goes their warranty.

[fatalitythoughts]

@andypotter3

Your a piece of work, you photos are crap, your drumming is even worse. Why don't you go read the TC guide and look under lens compatibility and you'll see it doesn't work with it.

[yumsy37]

All I am going to say is that Thom Hogan likes this lens and so do I. Funny about the low rating when most people I speak to think well of this lens. Bad copy?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

If it were a bad copy, we wouldn't be doing the review.

[Jmozzari]

@yumsy37 why listen to people who think otherwise if you can rent it and see for yourself?? actions are louder than thoughts

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Strongly agreed.

[bridgeoverwater627]

What exactly is 'poor man's bokeh'?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

It is where the fuzzy edges is still visible in extreme blurriness. Good bokeh rendition quality is where there is no fuzzy edges.

[digitalgear]

thank for the review .. surprise to see this review since it is a very old model.

i was consider this lens with the new Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC ... so since this nikon lens is so suck .. will this tamron lens perform better ?

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Many people begged, begged, and begged us to do a review on this paperweight lens so here it is.

No, Tamron will be much worse.

[joey75220]

Joey and crew, thanks for this vlog. Wow....EPIC FAIL?! I didn't expect you guys to give it such a low rating, but hey for the price it should definitely have better glass and better body construction. I will stick with my 70 - 300mm NON VR....works for ME!!! And I'll save my money for that $500 85mm Nikkor prim lens....

[FinlandApollo]

@joey75220 He has his own methods to review lenses and IMO his methods are very good. He finds every problem from the lenses. I think 70-200mm F2.8 is much worth of money than 70-300. 70-300 is DX and its very plastic and not sealed. I have tested it and there is only few apertures which you can use to get as good pic as possible.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Hah, thank you for the compliment.

This lens isn't a DX lens and it is sealed against dust and moisture.

But still a crappy lens.

[FinlandApollo]

@Lilkiwiguy87 Oh... I thought it was...quality of build was like a DX lenses. And I just don't trust to that sealing in this price range....

[khoihq]

I was thinking of purchasing this lens for my d5000...but after this it doesn't seem to worth its price tag....let say i'm willing to buy a lens for those portrait shot with niceenough bokeh effect, f2.8 is ideal but cost too much....what are the choices in a price range of one thousand?

[cgouais]

-Well first, you say that the ''zooming ring is to stiff''! I think its a ''plus'' because like that the barrel wont extend if your pointing down with the lens!!!

-And second, you say ''not worth the price''!! Compaire the the 70-200mm f2.8 at 2200$

i think the 70-300mm at 539.99$ CAD is a reasonable price for long zooming lens!!!

[Lilkiwiguy87]

1: Yes, it's a plus but not THAT stiff where you have to use some force to zoom in and out. This "zoom creep" problem had been addressed a very long time ago.

2: The lens is close to useless, not worth the price. Good and more useable lenses cost money.

[Jmozzari]

@cgouais whiner much? i dont think you touched this lens before so shuttup

[xjoeb]

i agree 1 star,

at 300mm the biggest opening is 5.6 i believe

horrible

[avucaldz]

Cool man.. I never never thought you would humble yourself to review this lens. Many Many thanks. 

[QuestLock]

Why is there such a big diffrence between the ratings? You call this lense an epic fail while Ken Rockwell ( yeah i know..) said that this is a great lense, other sites give an average rating. This is confusing and doesn't help if someone has in mind to buy this lense. This is no offence against anyone just my opinion..

Thx anyway for the review

[Lilkiwiguy87]

First, we suggest you read Ken Rockwell's About page very, very carefully.

Second, most reviews on the internet is done by inexperienced users, non-photographer authors, never touched the lens before, did not take a very good and close look, and / or did not spend enough time with the lens in real fields. Instead, they slap the lens on camera, shoot, "OOO!! I rate it A plus!!", then storm the review sites or forums about it.

[ForstaSvenskenIRymdn]

"This video is a brief hands-on review on Nikon's ideal lens to be used as a paperweight" Brilliant

[gotetrunks]

Can you suggest a valid alternative to this lens with the same range 70-300mm?

Thank you!

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Why weren't you paying attention?

The video has your answer.

[gotetrunks]

@Lilkiwiguy87 in the video you talk about a cheaper alternative, i'm asking for something valid, with better performance but with the same range.

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Unfortunately, there is no better lens in same focal length range but two lens combo: 80-200mm ƒ/2.8D AF or 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 (VR or VRII) and 300mm ƒ/4.0D AF-S ED-IF.

[gotetrunks]

@Lilkiwiguy87 Ok. Thank you very much for your patient. :)

[rafael145pl]

I like this lens anyway....

[estudio100rafa]

oh well , I think Im getting the 300m f4 VR instead of this lens after seen this review thanks. Also a poor mans lens but I think I will do better a 300 prime.

I would love to see a review on Teleconverters, to see how they perform, I have the 1.4x and I think it is not very sharp with my 70-200 f2.8 G VR II, but an expert opinion like yours would be greatly appreciated.

keep up your great work!

[Lilkiwiguy87]

Just FYI, there is no VR version of the 300mm ƒ/4.

But, oh, yes, the 300mm ƒ/4.0D AF-S ED-IF would be much better choice.

Teleconverters is usually not sharp at wide apertures, stop it down.