Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G : Specifications and Opinions

Reviews

What do you think?

Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!

There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 259000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.

The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.

Real

sent on 05 Febbraio 2026

Pros: Economical - lightweight - acceptable quality

Cons: Lacks VR

Opinion: I used it to photograph an A1 volleyball match and it gave excellent results. I also have a Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 ED D and obviously it doesn't compare with this one but for what I paid for it it's perfectly fine. The brightness is acceptable and also the focusing speed, I repeat we cannot compare it to VR and 2.8 optics that cost 4 or 5 times as much.

Takeao

sent on 11 Aprile 2024

Pros: Second-hand price, lightness. Other PROS? Don't have it.

Cons: Optics (at least the one I have) poor, not VR

Opinion: Regretted the purchase because, although it has two camera bodies, I was not able to take a photo worthy of being called such. I didn't do well not to take it without VR because my wrist is very wobbly but even on a tripod it returns very bad images. On long focal lengths? It is better to draw a veil of pity! Yes, it's true I paid little for it but it was wasted money... even if they are few. Wanting to resell it seems to me like throwing a bin at someone else: Nikon, but what have you done?

Cristian.s

sent on 13 Ottobre 2023

Pros: Light weight, discrete optical yield considering the cost range. Economic.

Cons: Completely made of plastic, slow AF, the silver version (which I still have) was combined with the silver analog F55 (which I still have). It is not stabilized.

Opinion: It is a G-type optics, so the diaphragms are controlled by the camera body. Autofocus only works with digital cameras with internal focus motor (type D90; D300 etc), in the other (entry level) without internal focus motor it is necessary to focus by hand and on this lens it is not easy to do so because the ring is very narrow. The yield on film was not bad. One day I came up with the idea of trying it on the D90 and I was amazed at the more than decent performance, it also returns (not if it is my impression) a very "analog" rendering with soft and soft colors. You have to be careful of the flare in the backlight, but I personally liked them in certain photos. You also get good blurs at high focal lengths. Attention in digital because in the F55 it sucked a little dust.

Oldman76

sent on 19 Dicembre 2019

Pros: Light, excellent yield (in relation to price) very effective anti-reflective treatment, wide excursion, up to 200mm sharp and defined already at TA, minimum focus 1.5 meters. Low price

Cons: Except the lenses are all plastic, at the maximum focal length loses in sharpness, is not very bright, does not have the physical ring of diaphragms, af not very fast and not motorized, the silver version is unwatchable

Opinion: Optical purchased in 2002 to have a battle canvas to use on an analog f65 turned out to be a good lens especially in relation to the purchase price. Dusted on the d200 (where it becomes a 140-450 mm) and currently in use on the d600 surprised me for the excellent yield up to 200mm, after you have to close a few stops to have good results, the colors are quite neutral, maybe just tending to the cold. The anti-reflection treatment is excellent, flare and ghost practically absent, just a slight loss of contrast in the most extreme situations, very solvable in post, at most just mount its lampshade. It has a pleasant blurry, which combined with the focal length allows you to make close-ups remaining at a proper distance, useful when between you and the subject there are, or there must be several meters. the resolution is great, from 70 to 200 you can use ta or at most close a couple of stops, besides it is better to close at least f8 or f11 to have a good definition. This problem is felt more on full frame, on the apsc is better because because of the crop factor, it takes only the best part of the lens, the center. Light and unwieldy, it allows you to walk, car around the neck without playing the cervical to the sera.la minimum distance of 1.5 m combined with the long focal allows you to take "almost macro" photos to objects not too small ( flowers, butterflies, insects medium.large). Let's come to the downsides. The construction is cheap, all plastic, even the bayonet, so be gable to take shots on the lens. the zoom dial is not bad, but at 300 mm the lens doubles its length and you feel a certain game of the barrel, the maf's dial is instead small, uncomfortable and has a short and completely free ride, difficult to sew into manual if you do not have small fingers . The brightness is what it is, but with recent bodies you can climb with iso with some tranquility. The AF takes advantage of the engine of the machine, so for entry levers that do not have the engine in the machine body, no AF. The speed is not comparable to the current AMs but it is not even that bad, I also used it for sporting events in AFc mode and if it got away with it with dignity, the speed depends on the body machine in these cases. As in all G lenses lacks the physical diaphragm diaphragm, on modern bodies no problem, but on analog you may have limitations, on my f90x, I can use it only in P mode. For the price at which it is today I would like to recommend it to those who have made the switch to full frame and is discovered on the canvas side( and on the financial side). For less than 100 euros you take a good lens, a little plastic but with an optical compartment still very valid, to carry around without too many patemi and weights. If you decide to buy it, the silver version costs on average 20 euros less than the black, but it is really tamarrissima.

Dizeta

sent on 28 Maggio 2018

Pros: Weight, discrete optical quality, price

Cons: Plastic, absence VR, automatic MAF only on cameras with AF motor

Opinion: The materials and the construction made in economics can easily lead to think that the one between the hands can be nothing but a goal, composed of funds of bottle. Surprisingly though, the overall quality of the lenses is not that bad. Indeed from 70mm up to 200mm the optical yield is good; Over the 200mm decade but it still remains usable. Undoubtedly of qualitatively better alternatives (with VR and built-in AF motor) there are several; But for those who did not have special needs and for those who were satisfied with a telephoto zoom economic, light, with slow (and noisy) but precise, could be a valid choice. At the bottom, this 70-300mm, his work plays it more than decently.

Vaake

sent on 21 Agosto 2017

Pros: Light and compact, discreet the smoothness of the zoom ring, optically very good almost equal to the 70-300 AF-S VR, beautifully blurred ... but above all Pro Pro is ... the price !, amazing!

Cons: Plastic bayonet and entry level construction, AF lens but precise, then obviously the absence of the VR that imposes high ISO shots to stay in safety. FX lens that can not be used in non-motorized DXs.

Opinion: Unknown lens, no coincidence is the first review here on Juza. Unknown but still in production, it is now only in the black version at prices to say the least tattered, I took it again to less than 100 euros! And for that figure I was not expecting any kind of optical rendering, comparable to the heavy and expensive AF-S 70-300 VR years ago, so very clear up to 200, then softens, but the 300 with a good PP are usable. Highly recommended for those who like me use the canvas very sporadically and do not want excessive burdens in the backpack. The AF is certainly not suitable for flying birds, but it is not slow. Not having the VR for the shutter speeds you have to stay with the high ISO, but for the recent FX as my D750 is not a problem. Surprising for value for money, prove it.