Anyone have the new Nikon 70-300mm AF-P f4.5/6.3?

Osantacruz

Senior Member
I've been wanting to get a little extra reach for my D500. I've never used the other FX 70-300 or the 55-300 but most forums and reviews tend to agree that they are soft at the long end which is where I'm hoping to use it. There's supposed to be a boost in speed with the new design that is appealing as well. I'm having a hell of a time finding reviews despite having been released in Sept and I don't ever pay attention to Ken Rockwell reviews but I tried it since it was the only one to come up, it should really be called a preview because there's no actual use by Ken - just a bunch of "it should" 'it probably" etc.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
You know, when I just picked up the FX 70-300mm VR, they never said anything like 'you should check out the new 70-300'. Seems like at f/6.3 on the long end, it's going to be a little slow, but I would still expect it to be better than the 55-300mm I had.

Maybe rent it and you can be the first hands-on review for this guy? ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
You know, when I just picked up the FX 70-300mm VR, they never said anything like 'you should check out the new 70-300'. Seems like at f/6.3 on the long end, it's going to be a little slow, but I would still expect it to be better than the 55-300mm I had.

Maybe rent it and you can be the first hands-on review for this guy? ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't realize that the new 70-300 was at 6.3 at the long end. Why would they do that? Does Nikon not want to sell many of these things? I would get the 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 [h=1]ED-IF AF-S [/h]which in my opinion was a masterpiece of a lens for the price.
 

Osantacruz

Senior Member
You know, when I just picked up the FX 70-300mm VR, they never said anything like 'you should check out the new 70-300'. Seems like at f/6.3 on the long end, it's going to be a little slow, but I would still expect it to be better than the 55-300mm I had.

Maybe rent it and you can be the first hands-on review for this guy? ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
At this point I just might! I was concerned about the f6.3 but not enough to dismiss it.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
It is a DX specific lens, so where the soft corners on the previous FX lens would be less of an issue on the D7x00, it could show up on this model. Still, I prefer real world tests rather than the Ken Rockwell reviews. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Osantacruz

Senior Member
I have this lens and I am impressed with the results.....
Have you used the 55-300 or FX 70-300? If so, is there enough of a difference to recommend it over the others? I figured if not, I can get a used 55-300 for less than $200 used instead.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

Roy1961

Senior Member
Contributor
i have both and the 70-300 is way better, 55-300 is never used now. i should get around to selling it?
 

Osantacruz

Senior Member
i have both and the 70-300 is way better, 55-300 is never used now. i should get around to selling it?
Might as well as long as it's not a hassle and gets you some money. I have an 18-55 and 55-200 from when I got my d50 back in 2006. It's not used but definitely not worth my time to sell online for probably less than $20 I bet since they're super old with no VR or anything. Tiny though so not exactly taking up any space.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
I didn't realize that the new 70-300 was at 6.3 at the long end. Why would they do that? Does Nikon not want to sell many of these things? I would get the 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S

which in my opinion was a masterpiece of a lens for the price.
Purposefully make your DX lens bad to maintain the FF is better fantasy?
 

salukfan111

Senior Member
Might as well as long as it's not a hassle and gets you some money. I have an 18-55 and 55-200 from when I got my d50 back in 2006. It's not used but definitely not worth my time to sell online for probably less than $20 I bet since they're super old with no VR or anything. Tiny though so not exactly taking up any space.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
There are two of the older 70-300 get the VR model (there are optical differences beyond the VR).
 

Osantacruz

Senior Member
I'll hopefully be reviewing it soon. Found a used copy on adorama for $300. Unfortunately no free shipping like Amazon or BH so it'll take its time getting to me.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

Bill4282

Senior Member
Might as well as long as it's not a hassle and gets you some money. I have an 18-55 and 55-200 from when I got my d50 back in 2006. It's not used but definitely not worth my time to sell online for probably less than $20 I bet since they're super old with no VR or anything. Tiny though so not exactly taking up any space.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
tried to sell my 55-200 to adorama. reply was "no thanks" lol

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
 

robbins.photo

Senior Member
I didn't realize that the new 70-300 was at 6.3 at the long end. Why would they do that? Does Nikon not want to sell many of these things? I would get the 70-300 VR 4.5-5.6 [h=1]ED-IF AF-S [/h]which in my opinion was a masterpiece of a lens for the price.
Might want to check the mtf data on both first. The older VR version was a great lens for the price and it was an fx lens.

But man if you've got a camera that can handle these af-p lenses the sharpness on these things is just unbelievable for a consumer grade lens.

I haven't shot an af-p myself yet but holy cow, even the 18-55mm kit lens is hitting at over 3500 at all focal lengths when shot at f8, and not less than 3000 in the center when shot wide open at 35mm. Very similar story for the 70-300mm af-p

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
 
Top