Is the Nikon 70-300mm really THAT bad?!

Overdraft

A Nikon lens (70-300mm f/4-5.6 G AF Zoom) that costs only £39.95 - why is it that cheap?

gerk86

looks cheap but some sellers lower item price then increase postage costs to balance it out and make the customer think they're getting a bargin.

The lens itself is great. I have one myself.

Overdraft

gerk86 wrote: »

looks cheap but some sellers lower item price then increase postage costs to balance it out and make the customer think they're getting a bargin.

True enough, the postage (£25) is nearly as much as the lens costs, but still only £65 in all.

gerk86 wrote: »

The lens itself is great. I have one myself.

That's interesting, you've tempted me now! It won't autofocus with my D40, but I'm still tempted at that price. Ken Rockwell has, generally, good things to say about it here, although he's besotted with the 18-200mm.

Masada

its not a bad lens at all., i have one myself and have taken a lot of nice shots with it, it is a bit slow to auto focus though,.,
you might wanna check that its within europe or you could get stuck for tax on top of the postage cost.,

OctoberFall

The focus is slow, the images are soft, you can't use properly at the long end unless it's really really bright. It's crap, but a good beginner lens.
Also, there's a new VR version of this lens out, so the prices have dropped recently.

Borderfox

any consumer lenses that are in the 70-300 range tend to be quite soft from 200-300 unless they are stopped down to f8 and above.

quilmore

yes, if you compare it with a prime or a grand-and-a-half-plus 70-200 2.8, it is slow and soft

but on its own it's a great lens capable of great pictures, much more than the pricetag can suggest
I've had one when I had my first d70 and one of the pictures I've taken with that combination is my best seller (none of the below)

some examples here:

bp_me

They used to be more. There is now a Nikon VR version which is much much better. Skip the non-VR models.

Overdraft

Beautiful photos quilmore.