Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6

Viewing 22 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #43528

      Anyone had a play with this lens?

      Horribly slow, but they are cheap as chips on ebay and I am thinking of getting one based on price alone.

      Worthwhile? Waste of time?

    • #53708
      tom dinning
      Blocked

      Why would you buy it just because its cheap?
      Why don’t you send the money to me if you have it to waste?
      Or put it aside for something you really need later.
      Geez, Rob, I sound like you mother.

    • #75522
      tom dinning
      Blocked

      Why would you buy it just because its cheap?
      Why don’t you send the money to me if you have it to waste?
      Or put it aside for something you really need later.
      Geez, Rob, I sound like you mother.

    • #53709

      Because I don’t have that focal range and did I mention it’s slow but REALLY REALLY cheap?

    • #75523

      Because I don’t have that focal range and did I mention it’s slow but REALLY REALLY cheap?

    • #53710
      tom dinning
      Blocked

      Well, there’s 2 good reasons. Three if you count both ‘Really’s’.

    • #75524
      tom dinning
      Blocked

      Well, there’s 2 good reasons. Three if you count both ‘Really’s’.

    • #53711
      Pam
      Participant

      The non-VR one? Yes, it’s slow, but it’s what I’ve used for all my sports until just last month. I also had it paired with a Nikon D100 and really had to fight to get good hockey pictures, but I did get them. I didn’t realize how much I had to fight until I got my new setup last month … and can take loads better pictures using just the Auto settings!
      I now have a D90 with the 70-300 VR lens … the difference in speed is amazing. Since I do both soccer and hockey I need the range.
      So I guess it depends on what you’re shooting. If you’re shooting landscapes, cows, doors, etc … do you really need the speed? If you’re shooting sports, birds in flight, racecars, etc … then it’s probably not worth your cash and you can help fund a lower aperture glass for me so I can take better pictures at gymnastics and such instead!

    • #75525
      Pam
      Participant

      The non-VR one? Yes, it’s slow, but it’s what I’ve used for all my sports until just last month. I also had it paired with a Nikon D100 and really had to fight to get good hockey pictures, but I did get them. I didn’t realize how much I had to fight until I got my new setup last month … and can take loads better pictures using just the Auto settings!
      I now have a D90 with the 70-300 VR lens … the difference in speed is amazing. Since I do both soccer and hockey I need the range.
      So I guess it depends on what you’re shooting. If you’re shooting landscapes, cows, doors, etc … do you really need the speed? If you’re shooting sports, birds in flight, racecars, etc … then it’s probably not worth your cash and you can help fund a lower aperture glass for me so I can take better pictures at gymnastics and such instead!

    • #53712
      STEVEDIAS
      Participant

      I also have a D-90 and the same 70-300mm VR lense and really havn’t found it to be that slow. It needs more light at the f/4-5.6 but has nice clarity. Pretty nice lense for under $600 US.

    • #75526
      STEVEDIAS
      Participant

      I also have a D-90 and the same 70-300mm VR lense and really havn’t found it to be that slow. It needs more light at the f/4-5.6 but has nice clarity. Pretty nice lense for under $600 US.

    • #53713
      Astaroth
      Participant

      I have a TAMRON 70-300mm F/4-5.6. I bought it because of its low cost and I’m very happy with it because now I can take pictures closer that ever (it opens the doors of a new kind of photography for me). In outdoors, with a good amount of light, it works fine, however sometimes you have to set higher ISOs.

      If I had known that NIKON offers a similar lens at the same cost, I had bought it.

      I never could have some very expensive (and faster) lenses, but I like take close pictures of birds, for example.

    • #75527
      Astaroth
      Participant

      I have a TAMRON 70-300mm F/4-5.6. I bought it because of its low cost and I’m very happy with it because now I can take pictures closer that ever (it opens the doors of a new kind of photography for me). In outdoors, with a good amount of light, it works fine, however sometimes you have to set higher ISOs.

      If I had known that NIKON offers a similar lens at the same cost, I had bought it.

      I never could have some very expensive (and faster) lenses, but I like take close pictures of birds, for example.

    • #53714
      Tim McMurdo
      Participant

      I have an Olympus 70-300 F/4-5.6 that I bought for birding and wildlife shoots. Yes, it is slow, but I still get very nice results with it.

    • #75528
      Tim McMurdo
      Participant

      I have an Olympus 70-300 F/4-5.6 that I bought for birding and wildlife shoots. Yes, it is slow, but I still get very nice results with it.

    • #53715

      Hmm, well I just got some other stuff and my budget is way limited, but I can afford this cheap lens.

      I think I am gonna do it based on what you guys have said. Thanks.

    • #75529

      Hmm, well I just got some other stuff and my budget is way limited, but I can afford this cheap lens.

      I think I am gonna do it based on what you guys have said. Thanks.

    • #53716

      I hate customs.

      Just saying.

      🙁

    • #75530

      I hate customs.

      Just saying.

      🙁

    • #53717
      Pam
      Participant

      Taking longer than expected, eh?

    • #75531
      Pam
      Participant

      Taking longer than expected, eh?

    • #53718

      It’s been released now. Now it’s sitting on my GF’s desk at her work.

      This is killing me!

    • #75532

      It’s been released now. Now it’s sitting on my GF’s desk at her work.

      This is killing me!

Viewing 22 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.