Thanks for this review which I’d say is a very accurate description and a fair assessment – the lens has its faults if pixel-peeping, much of which can be fixed in post. As a casual walkabout zoom I can’t really fault this lens. It’s lightweight and with amazingly fast and accurate autofocus. Use of plastic instead of metal here is an attribute to make this so usable handheld. Optically it’s almost as good as pro level but does lack a little in resolving fine detail – I’m keen to try this at a sport event in place of my trusted 70-200 f2.8 just out of curiosity, the extra reach may compensate for the slight drop in IQ and should be fine in normal daylight conditions.
On a DX body (I’ve used it on my D7500) the crop factor gives 105-450mm reach – still not far enough reach for true wildlife but great when closer to the subject. More of a ‘wildlife in landscape’ lens but, given its autofocus speed, is great for BIF in good light, again, when closer to the subject. Use of the deep hood is essential, esp with rain, as with all zooms but to avoid the glare issues mentioned. I’d say, on balance, anyone would be severely tested to find a zoom lens of similar focal length to be this good at the price-point.
In the context of D7500+wildlife I really miss a F-mount Nikkor AF-P 100-400 !
Patrick Stargardt
April 2, 2020 12:42 am
How does it compare to the Nikon 300mm F4 PF? Can we compare the imatest scores from the test?
Matthew Currie
November 19, 2019 2:13 pm
I’m a little late to the party here, but in anticipation of a few trips recently I finally got around to replacing my 55-300DX with the 70-300 P (FX version). I chose that because my D7100 has no in-camera ability to turn off VR, and I have read that the VR on the DX version, while good most of the time, may compromise panning for birds in flight. And since I could afford the DX version and still fit it in my traveling backpack, I went for it. I haven’t noticed a problem tracking BIF in the current lens, but it as an “active” VR mode, and you can turn it off, so I can use whatever works best whenever I need.
After playing a bit with this and liking it, my wife raced it against her 70-300AFS/VR, and traded that one in.
Of course it’s easy to guess that the new lens outperforms the 55-300 optically and vastly outperforms it mechanically, but it also visibly tops the previous model. The AFS-VR was very good, but the new one is visibly better.
On a recent trip to Antarctic regions, I was continually suprised (after several years with the 55-300) at how consistently and how fast the new lens hit what it was aimed at. There may be a few reasons to gripe at Nikon for doing this or that or failing to do that or this, but I’m happy with the choices on this one.
Daniel
August 27, 2019 7:00 am
can someone put on line some shots about the AF-P 70-300 DX VR on FX sensor? i’m really interested, especially from 100mm and up! from what i read here it look like a good compromise between quality and price. personally it would be only a temporary choice while waiting nikon to relase similar zoom on z-mount!
Hi Daniel I am really pleased with this lens on my Z6 as a lightweight travel telephoto. Fast focussing and I would say sharp. Its light but is a bit long with the FTZ adaptor but I left the lens hood at home which helped (I regretted that when using the lens in light rain!). I managed to purchase in the UK from a dealer as an open box product for £430 – I consider that to be a bargain. Hope that helps – I would post some shots if I knew how.
Guy Dagar
March 18, 2019 2:36 pm
Shooting the AF-P 70-300mm with both my D810 and D850 I have to say I’m just continuously amazed. As far as I can tell the IQ is just as good as my three favorite Nikon zooms, the 24-70mm f/2.8 G, The 70-200mm f/4 G VR, and the lowly but ultra sharp 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5. I bought the 70-300 to have a lighter lens with a little more reach for those times when I don’t want to lug a tripod down on the beach or into the woods. Hand-held at 300mm it continues to provide sharp, beautiful photos. One of these days I’ll put it on a tripod and see what it really can do.
Chris Newman
March 9, 2019 3:17 am
As I commented under your Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P review, I have been looking, unsuccessfully, for measurements of resolution, etc, on the same basis, to allow me to compare the image quality of the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P. This is the first site I’ve found that that covers both of these telephotos and publishes measurements. (I was particularly impressed by the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S review, with four copies tested to address variation.) I was then very disappointed to find that the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P review doesn’t include measured data. Are you able to comment on the relative optical quality of these two lenses?
With thanks, Chris
Chris Newman
March 8, 2019 8:53 am
I have a Nikon D800, my principal lens is a 24-70mm f/2.8, but the core kit I regularly carry includes APS-C lenses to keep down weight. My telephoto is the Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200 4-5.6G IF-ED, but I would like a longer reach and better image quality, and recently testing has convinced me that my hand-held results at 200mm are degraded by mirror slap. (Ironically for a telephoto, the 55-200mm is my lightest lens, as well as the cheapest. My other, heavier lenses also have shorter focal lengths, except the massive Sigma 150-500mm, which combined with their larger moments of inertia seem to avoid problems with mirror slap.) But no alternative lenses seemed suitable until Nikon launched both FX and DX AF-P 70-300mm lenses. I’ve updated the firmware on my D800. The DX lens is lighter; great for carrying, but probably less resistant to mirror slap when I come to use it. Its smaller image circle is a drawback, but relatively minor for a telephoto, when my subjects are often birds or butterflies that don’t fill the frame anyway. It lacks a VR switch (not important for me) and also has a ⅓ stop smaller telephoto aperture and a plastic mount, but it’s much cheaper. Reviews praise both lenses, but I can’t find matching reviews that show their measured optical performances in the same terms. Browsing reviews of the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S (only daydreaming at present), I found Photography Life’s, and was extremely impressed by its thoroughness, and testing four copies to address variation. I then found and read this Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P review, but was so disappointed to find Photography Life’s Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P review doesn’t include measurements of resolution, etc. Are you able to comment on the relative optical quality of these two lenses?
With thanks, Chris
Baptiste
January 24, 2019 4:32 am
Hello,
I am doing professional architecture photography, i already have 14-24 ; 24-70 ; and i need a zoom for architecture details. I can’t choose between this lens and the 70-200 f4. I really wonder about the difference of sharpness around 200mm.
It is not a matter of price but more a matter of sharpness vs 200-300mm range and 100g lighter. Any advice on this ?
I use D800 + D750
Thank you in advance
Mirella
December 13, 2018 10:24 pm
I have a question how is it some of the images have a f/8.0 aperture if the lens max aperture is 5.6 Can someone answer this? I am totally confuse…. NIKON D850 + 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 82mm, ISO 64, 13/10, f/8.0
Great review! But what about “dust and moisture-resistant”? Do you refer to the rubber ring at the mount or there is something more? I can’t find any info on that anywhere else, seems that only you are mentioned that. Thanks!
Thanks for this review which I’d say is a very accurate description and a fair assessment – the lens has its faults if pixel-peeping, much of which can be fixed in post. As a casual walkabout zoom I can’t really fault this lens. It’s lightweight and with amazingly fast and accurate autofocus. Use of plastic instead of metal here is an attribute to make this so usable handheld. Optically it’s almost as good as pro level but does lack a little in resolving fine detail – I’m keen to try this at a sport event in place of my trusted 70-200 f2.8 just out of curiosity, the extra reach may compensate for the slight drop in IQ and should be fine in normal daylight conditions.
On a DX body (I’ve used it on my D7500) the crop factor gives 105-450mm reach – still not far enough reach for true wildlife but great when closer to the subject. More of a ‘wildlife in landscape’ lens but, given its autofocus speed, is great for BIF in good light, again, when closer to the subject. Use of the deep hood is essential, esp with rain, as with all zooms but to avoid the glare issues mentioned. I’d say, on balance, anyone would be severely tested to find a zoom lens of similar focal length to be this good at the price-point.
In the context of D7500+wildlife I really miss a F-mount Nikkor AF-P 100-400 !
How does it compare to the Nikon 300mm F4 PF? Can we compare the imatest scores from the test?
I’m a little late to the party here, but in anticipation of a few trips recently I finally got around to replacing my 55-300DX with the 70-300 P (FX version). I chose that because my D7100 has no in-camera ability to turn off VR, and I have read that the VR on the DX version, while good most of the time, may compromise panning for birds in flight. And since I could afford the DX version and still fit it in my traveling backpack, I went for it. I haven’t noticed a problem tracking BIF in the current lens, but it as an “active” VR mode, and you can turn it off, so I can use whatever works best whenever I need.
After playing a bit with this and liking it, my wife raced it against her 70-300AFS/VR, and traded that one in.
Of course it’s easy to guess that the new lens outperforms the 55-300 optically and vastly outperforms it mechanically, but it also visibly tops the previous model. The AFS-VR was very good, but the new one is visibly better.
On a recent trip to Antarctic regions, I was continually suprised (after several years with the 55-300) at how consistently and how fast the new lens hit what it was aimed at. There may be a few reasons to gripe at Nikon for doing this or that or failing to do that or this, but I’m happy with the choices on this one.
can someone put on line some shots about the AF-P 70-300 DX VR on FX sensor?
i’m really interested, especially from 100mm and up!
from what i read here it look like a good compromise between quality and price. personally it would be only a temporary choice while waiting nikon to relase similar zoom on z-mount!
Hi Daniel
I am really pleased with this lens on my Z6 as a lightweight travel telephoto. Fast focussing and I would say sharp. Its light but is a bit long with the FTZ adaptor but I left the lens hood at home which helped (I regretted that when using the lens in light rain!). I managed to purchase in the UK from a dealer as an open box product for £430 – I consider that to be a bargain. Hope that helps – I would post some shots if I knew how.
Shooting the AF-P 70-300mm with both my D810 and D850 I have to say I’m just continuously amazed. As far as I can tell the IQ is just as good as my three favorite Nikon zooms, the 24-70mm f/2.8 G, The 70-200mm f/4 G VR, and the lowly but ultra sharp 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5. I bought the 70-300 to have a lighter lens with a little more reach for those times when I don’t want to lug a tripod down on the beach or into the woods. Hand-held at 300mm it continues to provide sharp, beautiful photos. One of these days I’ll put it on a tripod and see what it really can do.
As I commented under your Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P review, I have been looking, unsuccessfully, for measurements of resolution, etc, on the same basis, to allow me to compare the image quality of the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P. This is the first site I’ve found that that covers both of these telephotos and publishes measurements. (I was particularly impressed by the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S review, with four copies tested to address variation.) I was then very disappointed to find that the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P review doesn’t include measured data.
Are you able to comment on the relative optical quality of these two lenses?
With thanks,
Chris
I have a Nikon D800, my principal lens is a 24-70mm f/2.8, but the core kit I regularly carry includes APS-C lenses to keep down weight. My telephoto is the Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200 4-5.6G IF-ED, but I would like a longer reach and better image quality, and recently testing has convinced me that my hand-held results at 200mm are degraded by mirror slap. (Ironically for a telephoto, the 55-200mm is my lightest lens, as well as the cheapest. My other, heavier lenses also have shorter focal lengths, except the massive Sigma 150-500mm, which combined with their larger moments of inertia seem to avoid problems with mirror slap.) But no alternative lenses seemed suitable until Nikon launched both FX and DX AF-P 70-300mm lenses. I’ve updated the firmware on my D800. The DX lens is lighter; great for carrying, but probably less resistant to mirror slap when I come to use it. Its smaller image circle is a drawback, but relatively minor for a telephoto, when my subjects are often birds or butterflies that don’t fill the frame anyway. It lacks a VR switch (not important for me) and also has a ⅓ stop smaller telephoto aperture and a plastic mount, but it’s much cheaper. Reviews praise both lenses, but I can’t find matching reviews that show their measured optical performances in the same terms. Browsing reviews of the Nikkor Z 24-70mm f/4 S (only daydreaming at present), I found Photography Life’s, and was extremely impressed by its thoroughness, and testing four copies to address variation. I then found and read this Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P review, but was so disappointed to find Photography Life’s Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX VR AF-P review doesn’t include measurements of resolution, etc.
Are you able to comment on the relative optical quality of these two lenses?
With thanks,
Chris
Hello,
I am doing professional architecture photography,
i already have 14-24 ; 24-70 ; and i need a zoom for architecture details.
I can’t choose between this lens and the 70-200 f4.
I really wonder about the difference of sharpness around 200mm.
It is not a matter of price but more a matter of sharpness vs 200-300mm range and 100g lighter.
Any advice on this ?
I use D800 + D750
Thank you in advance
I have a question how is it some of the images
have a f/8.0 aperture if the lens max aperture is 5.6 Can someone answer this? I am totally confuse….
NIKON D850 + 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 82mm, ISO 64, 13/10, f/8.0
An f8 aperture is smaller than an f5.6 aperture.
Great review!
But what about “dust and moisture-resistant”? Do you refer to the rubber ring at the mount or there is something more?
I can’t find any info on that anywhere else, seems that only you are mentioned that.
Thanks!