Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm F/4-56 D Ed With D800 Review
(From Nikon lens literature) High powered 4.3X telephoto zoom lens. Rotating zoom ring. ED drinking glass for loftier resolution and loftier contrast fifty-fifty at maximum apertures.
Exam Notes
Sharpness
This lens has been in Nikon's lineup for some time at present, and information technology unfortunately shows in its optical performance. It might take been fine in the days of film, with that medium's lower resolution, but the microscopic pixels of mod DSLRs brand higher demands. Stopped down a bit at brusk and medium focal lengths it's actually pretty decent, simply it'southward very noticeably soft at any discontinuity at 200mm, and even more so at 300. Wide open up, information technology's pretty bad at whatever focal length. If yous could get a great deal on a used copy and only cared about shooting stopped downwardly a fleck from seventy-135mm, you might make a case for it, merely information technology'due south difficult to recommend as a new, full-toll purchase.
Chromatic Aberration
The Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-five.6D's chromatic abnormality pretty much follows its sharpness behavior: It's not at all bad from 70-135mm, but deteriorates from there, with very high CA in the corners and edges at 300mm.
Shading ("Vignetting")
Equally you'd wait from a lens designed for total-frame use shot on a subframe camera, shading is excellent. Wide open up, information technology's about a quarter of an f/stop at all focal lenths, quickly dropping to less than ane/10 EV when stopped down.
Distortion
Geometric distortion ranges from slight (0.fourteen%) barrel distortion at 70mm to a maximum of 0.35% pincushion at 135mm, decreasing slightly to 0.3% pincushion at 300mm.
AF Operation
This lens employs Nikon'south older screwdriver-drive arrangement, relying on the body's AF motor for focus operation. This ways its slower than more than recent models that use Nikon's ultrasonic motor technology, taking shut to two seconds to slew from closest focus to infinity. The lens is somewhat noisy while focusing, but far from the worst we've heard.
The drive system besides means that you lot must explicitly switch it to manual focus manner to manually adjust it. Manual aligning is relatively easy though, with plenty of butt rotation for making accurate settings.
Macro
Macro operation isn't bad for a tele zoom , the minimum coverage area was 98mm (3.9 inches) on our 20D test body, with a lens to subject field distance of 185mm (7.three inches) at 300mm focal length.
Build Quality and Handling
Build quality was surprisingly proficient for a mid-priced zoom, with smoothly operating zoom and focus rings, and only very slight play between the extending and fixed lens barrels. At that place's a slight tendency toward zoom creep, the zoom setting will change if a photographic camera is held with the lens facing down and jiggled somewhat. (As it would be if you lot were carrying information technology around your neck.)
This is definitely an external zoom/focus lens, every bit the barrel extends about 50mm (nearly ii inches) when zooming, and another roughly 17mm when focusing. The lens barrel doesn't rotate while zooming, but does rotate while focusing, potentially an issue with polarizers and graduated neutral density filters, or whatever other auxiliary optical component that's rotation-sensitive. Mounted on the camera, the relatively lite weight of this lens provided good balance on our D200 exam body. It might a bit front end-heavy on a smaller torso like the D80, but I don't call back excessively then.
The Competition
We haven't tested a lot of lenses in this focal length range yet (this is being written in early Baronial, 2007), merely nosotros do accept a few models that we can compare:
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.v-5.6 ED-IF AF-Due south VR ~$480
This VR lens has roughly like specifications to the lxx-300mm f/four-v.6D, but includes Nikon's Vibration Reduction technology and offers dramatically better optical performance. Sharpness is much amend overall, and peculiarly when stopped downward slightly, distortion is a bit lower, while chromatic aberration is like. Almost twice the price of the 70-300mm f/four-5.6 D, simply the optical quality is so far superior that the Vibration Reducion comes almost as a bonus. A much amend value for the money, well worth it if you lot tin can beget the cost differential.
Nikon lxxx-400mm f/four.5-5.6D ED AF VR ~$ane,500
A wider zoom range, much improve optical performance, and VR too, simply at the price of vastly greater bulk and a much higher selling price.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO ~$780-890
Non as much at the telephoto cease and a considerably college toll, simply vastly improved optical quality and a very large f/2.8 constant maximum aperture.
Tamron lxx-300mm f/iv-five.half-dozen Di LD Macro ~$160-190
Slightly lighter build quality, simply marginally better optical performance at a lower selling cost. It's still no prize optically, but the Tamron beats the Nikon optic in our tests, and its price is difficult to beat out.
Summary
It's reasonably priced and reasonably well-constructed lens, but the Nikon 70-300mm f/iv-5.6D actually doesn't make the form optically, at least non at its longest focal lengths. It's OK at shorter focal lengths, but if you lot don't need a 300mm zoom, y'all'd probably exist better served past looking at 70-200mm models in the first identify. If y'all do want the total 70-300mm range, you can go (slightly) better performance from the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD for less money, or dramatically ameliorate optical performance from the Nikon seventy-300mm f/4.five-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR for about half again the cost, and with the added benefit of Vibration Reduction built in.
Sample Photos!
Beginning in July 2007, we now provide sample photos of 2 laboratory test targets to help in our readers' evaluation of the lenses nosotros test. The VFA target should requite y'all a good thought of sharpness in the center and corners, likewise as some thought of the extent of barrel or pincushion baloney and chromatic aberration, while the However Life subject may aid in judging contrast and color. We shoot both images using the default JPEG settings and manual white rest of our test bodies, so the images should exist quite consistent from lens to lens.
As appropriate, nosotros shoot these with both total-frame and sub-frame bodies, at a range of focal lengths, and at both maximum aperture and f/viii. For the "VFA" target (the viewfinder accurateness target from Imaging Resource), we besides provide sample crops from the eye and upper-left corner of each shot, so you can quickly get a sense of relative sharpness, without having to download and audit the total-res images. To avoid infinite limitations with the layout of our review pages, indexes to the test shots launch in separate windows.
To see the sample shots from this lens captured with this lens on our D200 test body, only click on either of the thumbnails below, and coil as needed in the window that appears.
Still Life shot
VFA target
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-five.6D ED AF Nikkor
Nikon 70-300mm f/iv-5.6D ED AF Nikkor User Reviews
-
7 out of 10 points and recommended by desmobob (7 reviews)
Inexpensive, lightweight, large zoom range.
Focus off at short end?
reviewed March 21st, 2022 (purchased for $310)Kickoff of all, I have an AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8, which is just wonderful... but very large and heavy. I picked up the cheap lxx-300mm for a walk-around lens. I also accept an older 70-210mm f/4-five.6D, which Mr. Rockwell raves almost (which Nikkor doesn't he rave about?). The 70-300 has a reputation for performing poorly from 200-300mm.
I'chiliad thinning the herd and just did a head-to-caput with the 70-210 and the seventy-300 and was surprised at the results. At 70mm, the seventy-300 was dismal in sharpness. But at 90mm and 135mm it equaled the lxx-210 and had much better color. At 200mm, the 70-210 seemed better. And though in that location were no photos from the 70-210 to compare with at 300mm, the 70-300mm results were pretty overnice.
I've read of some seventy-300mm lenses having a focus error at 70mm. I'm guessing this might be the result with mine. Still, I'll pick information technology over the older 70-210 for overall results, zoom range and convenience.
-
half dozen out of 10 points and not recommended by Masselink (6 reviews)
ED elements
Slow focus speed; didn't similar the quality @300mm
reviewed January 15th, 2007 (purchased for $400)The main reasson i bought this lens was for budget reassons. I didn't desire to spend more money, but i also didn't want the 'chaep' version.
This lens has better quaity than the Nikon seventy-300mm f/iv-v.6G AF Nikkor (not-ED-version)
It also has an extra aperture ring.Allthough the lens performed good in the 70-200mm range, i found information technology near impossible to use the 200-300mm.
The slow focus speed and the f5.6 was to much for me. I sold this one and now i own the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-v.6G VR AF Nikkor.
Buy information technology when you originally wanted the non-ED version. Don't buy it if y'all tin manage to spend a picayune chip more to get a VR-ED version.
-
eight out of 10 points and recommended past privid (v reviews)
build for price, satisfactory image quality, fairly fast focus, metal mountain, ED
not a 'serious' lens, mainly plastic
reviewed December 16th, 2006 (purchased for $400)Like a childhood sweetheart this lens was great when I was starting out in slr world but now I'yard older and more mature (coughing) and this just doesn't satisfy my needs. I was able to brand a lot of good shots with it at day time family occasions and kids sport, but every bit soon as you're working an event as a payed photographer under pressure, then you need a speed, responsiveness and ruggedness this lens simply can't deliver and realistically shouldn't for the price.
Dandy for beginners or amatuers who use their cameras socially. The metal mount and ED chemical element should ensure a higher resale value as well.
-
9 out of 10 points and recommended by nullphotography (5 reviews)
long focal length, ED drinking glass, low weight, meaty
no IF or SWM, hence noisy
Keen starter telephoto lens. The long focal length is what I wanted for capturing birds and animals at a distance. At the time I really wanted IF and SWM but they were not available on a zoom of this length or price range. But now that the 70-300mm VR is out, I am upgrading.
reviewed December fifth, 2006 (purchased for $350)
The lens is dainty and compact and light. It's ver y easy to comport this effectually your cervix all twenty-four hours. The f/4-5.half dozen is fast plenty specially because the price jump to faster lenses. Picture quality is great, I consider it on par with my xviii-70mm kit. But problem is slight softness on the 300mm range simply this could also be contributed to lens milkshake.
I would not recommend using a polarizing filter on this due to the fact that the barrel rotates as it focuses thus causing you to readjust the filter constantly.
I would recommend this to amateur photographers just starting out and want to endeavor their manus with a telephoto lens. -
5 out of x points and recommended by afukuda (3 reviews)
Focal Length, Price.
Very soft at long end, cheap plastic structure, No VR
I bought a used sample of this lens six months ago, I only paid $200 for the lens + hood,
reviewed November 19th, 2006 (purchased for $200)
The maing reason for buying this lens was to apply its huge focal length, however the image quality at long terminate is really disappointing, too soft to be truthful, to my taste is only useful from 70mm to 150mm.
Autofocus is also disappointing: Slow.
Built Quality: It feels cheap plastic.
No VR. -
8 out of 10 points and recommended by Hokum (five reviews)
Low-cal, precipitous and low distortion
Some CA, great sample variation
reviewed June 5th, 2006This lens has very wide sample variation, some are rubbish end to stop, some are good at the wide end some at the telephoto.
My lens was cherry picked, and 100-300mm it is very sharp, it goes off a piddling at the wider terminate. At 300mm f6.iii it is knock out, with very picayune CA, pin cusion, and is pretty flare resistant.
I picked up this lens as i wanted a ligher lens for travel and walking than the 300mm f2.8.
My simply main nit is that the AF is a trivial sluggish, an AF-S version would be nice, even better would be a VR version.
-
vii out of 10 points and recommended by freundez (nine reviews)
Meaty size, quick autofocus
Zoom ring prone to slipping, very soft images over 200mm
reviewed January 28th, 2006 (purchased for $185)I bought a used copy of this lens as a companion to my 18-70mm on my D70s. This is no 80-200mm or seventy-200mm VR, but for the price, I accept been quite happy with the images this lens produces, and the smaller size allows me to behave it in my photographic camera bag that I wouldn't have been able to practice with either of those pro-zooms.
Compared to the 18-70mm at 70mm, the lens is not quite as abrupt and suffers a bit more than from CA, but images are quite good so long as you are not stopped down past f/16 - at which point things become considerably softer. Additionally, as you lot've probably read elsewhere, I recommend avoiding anything much past 200mm if you care about sharpness. Bokeh is likewise poorer than the 18-70mm, so if y'all are looking for a zoom portrait lens, expect elsewhere.
Build quality is decent, although my particular example has a pretty loose zoom ring which is susceptible to 'united nations-zooming' if I shoot at any sort of an upwardly angle. I did try a new example at a local camera shop and the zoom machinery was considerably stiffer, so take that for what it is worth.
As is the case with all lenses, consider what you are going to apply the lens for before making a purchase. If you are simply looking for a carry around zoom that will yield expert photos in the seventy-200mm range, I recommend this lens. If you need a faster lens or something that volition exist tact abrupt beyond the entire zoom range, plan on filling your bag (and emptying your wallet) with something bigger.
-
7 out of 10 points and recommended by neticen (3 reviews)
Affordable with a wide zoom range
Poor handling
reviewed October 21st, 2005 (purchased for $299)From an image quality standpoint, this lens is a bit better than the other consumer grade tele-zooms. Image quality is good throughout the zoom range, and improves equally the lens approaches f/8. At the 200-300 end of the zoom, the lens shows an increasing drib in contrast and evidence more and more softness. The softness improves past f/8 to about f/11 only the overall lack of contrast and flat color does non.
At present having said all of that, information technology is really not a bad lens. If you lot don't want to conduct a heavy and expensive f/2.8 with yous on vacation, and then this is not a bad alternative. It takes practiced pictures if you lot stop information technology down a flake and stay away from full zoom. It is the best sub-$1000 telephoto zoom currently available from Nikon.
I do have a couple of nagging issues with this lens.
The first is that the manual focus ring is a mess. It is too loose for my taste to begin with, but the markings are the real event. It does non have whatsoever indicator to bear witness the focus distance even though they are marked on the ring. To further frustrate, in that location are no DOF markings.
Second, my lens creeps out if information technology is hanging from your neck. This is very annoying to me. If you put the lens at 100mm and point the lens down, information technology zooms. When yous are checking frames on the LCD this is quite annoying because when you lot bring the camera support to your face information technology is at a different focal length.
Last, the included hood is a cone manner that is also not marked. It is a pain to install, but it will contrary on the lens for storage.
Source: https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/70-300mm-f4-5.6d-ed-af-nikkor/review/
0 Response to "Nikon Nikkor 70-300mm F/4-56 D Ed With D800 Review"
Post a Comment