Some corrections for the sake of completeness: I thought 545g is the weight of the E-mount version of the lens, and the Z-mount version is very slightly heavier, by less than 50g.
Photography Life is also the only place I’ve seen mentioning that this lens’ front element is fluorine-coated. It does not appear to have that, but I’ve yet to need to clean mine to find out. Most other reviews mentioned that the lens has significant field curvature at 70mm and improves by 100mm at infinity, which agrees with my own experience. Probably sample variation at work, given the price of the thing. By 200mm this lens is very nice corner to corner on 24MP, even wide open, to me. It appears to have prioritized performance at telephoto range instead of the typical wideangle end.
I did get the Nikon Z version of this lens partly based on your review. It makes a fantastic travel combo with the kit 24-70 f/4 S, though it did not quite satisfy my gear lust over things like the Nikkor Z 100-400 which I cannot justify, or the Tamron 50-400 which seemed more versatile, if heavier, than this no-frills telephoto.
Lopez
August 31, 2024 7:02 am
J’hésite vraiment entre celui ci et un 100 400 Tamron ou sigma avec Ftz … Pr un budget équivalent. Choix très compliqué ! Un avis ?
Robert John
July 21, 2024 8:02 am
I quite fancy the Sony 20-70 with this lens (Sony fit) and a Samyang 135/f1.8 (Sony fit) for landscape and flora. The other 2 lenses are not available from Nikon (no, the Plena isn’t going to hit my credit card) and the saving would go to an adaptor. I’d keep Nikon cameras (D500 and Z5) for my 300/f4 PF and 500/f5.6 PF, which no other manufacturer can match. Seems a bit odd to straddle all of 35mm and aps-c, F and Z mount and Nikon and Sony, but they’d fit my requirements for versatility, weight and cost.
DIMITRIOS GEROUSIS
July 2, 2024 6:21 am
For the price of 380€ is an acceptable solution for my Sony a7ii. Optical wise in most cases, under sunny conditions, are fine. I would appreciate an engraved scale on focusing ring and a tripod socket would have been a must
Mark Laidlaw
July 9, 2023 3:20 pm
Good review, I think this is a really tough sell compared to the 50-250mm if you’re shooting on DX. It’s larger, more expensive, just as slow, and sharpness on the two I bet is realistically identical.
bg5931
July 9, 2023 3:50 am
Hi Spencer, I thought the separate comparison articles were a nice touch and informative; however, having to click out to several articles to see the sharpness comparisons in the main review is not an improvement, in my view. My (humble) suggestion is to keep these available in the main review (this one) and have the separate articles and links to as an addition, not as a replacement.
Maranoblet
July 8, 2023 2:12 am
Owned this lens for a bit. The lack of weight is really noticable and image quality at the long end seemed good enough to me. VR wasn’t really an issue on my Z7. Actually prefered it over the AF-P 70-300 as I’m not a fan of the FTZ.
It’s probably the least important thing about a lens but I really didn’t like the feel of the plastic, the difference between this and a native Nikon lens is really noticable to me. I also didn’t like the feel of the zooming mechanism, not as smooth as my 24-200.
I ended up selling it and going for the 100-400, great image quality but it is heavy for hiking. I have preordered the new 70-180 Nikon and also the 180-600 (for wildlife)which I think, between them, could replace the 100-400 to give lightweight on the one hand and reach with the other. I would be interested to see how image quality performs between the 70-300 and the 70-180 with a TC.
Ircut
July 7, 2023 3:56 pm
Looks like an affordable worthy addition to the Z lens lineup. It’s quite cheap, even if more expensive than the Sony version, the quality is good enough, and it’s light.
Great combo for an entry level full frame telephoto, and good enough for most purposes. For travel/hiking it gives more reach than the 24-200mm, but it’s hard to argue with omitting a lens entirely by using the 24-200. It would pair well with a 24-70mm f/4 however.
The combo of the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/3, 24-70mm f/4, and Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is a fantastic lightweight kit. I’m sure those would be the lenses in my travel bag, if I weren’t already content using the Z 24-200mm instead.
Some corrections for the sake of completeness: I thought 545g is the weight of the E-mount version of the lens, and the Z-mount version is very slightly heavier, by less than 50g.
Photography Life is also the only place I’ve seen mentioning that this lens’ front element is fluorine-coated. It does not appear to have that, but I’ve yet to need to clean mine to find out. Most other reviews mentioned that the lens has significant field curvature at 70mm and improves by 100mm at infinity, which agrees with my own experience. Probably sample variation at work, given the price of the thing. By 200mm this lens is very nice corner to corner on 24MP, even wide open, to me. It appears to have prioritized performance at telephoto range instead of the typical wideangle end.
I did get the Nikon Z version of this lens partly based on your review. It makes a fantastic travel combo with the kit 24-70 f/4 S, though it did not quite satisfy my gear lust over things like the Nikkor Z 100-400 which I cannot justify, or the Tamron 50-400 which seemed more versatile, if heavier, than this no-frills telephoto.
J’hésite vraiment entre celui ci et un 100 400 Tamron ou sigma avec Ftz … Pr un budget équivalent. Choix très compliqué ! Un avis ?
I quite fancy the Sony 20-70 with this lens (Sony fit) and a Samyang 135/f1.8 (Sony fit) for landscape and flora. The other 2 lenses are not available from Nikon (no, the Plena isn’t going to hit my credit card) and the saving would go to an adaptor. I’d keep Nikon cameras (D500 and Z5) for my 300/f4 PF and 500/f5.6 PF, which no other manufacturer can match. Seems a bit odd to straddle all of 35mm and aps-c, F and Z mount and Nikon and Sony, but they’d fit my requirements for versatility, weight and cost.
For the price of 380€ is an acceptable solution for my Sony a7ii. Optical wise in most cases, under sunny conditions, are fine. I would appreciate an engraved scale on focusing ring and a tripod socket would have been a must
Good review, I think this is a really tough sell compared to the 50-250mm if you’re shooting on DX. It’s larger, more expensive, just as slow, and sharpness on the two I bet is realistically identical.
Hi Spencer, I thought the separate comparison articles were a nice touch and informative; however, having to click out to several articles to see the sharpness comparisons in the main review is not an improvement, in my view. My (humble) suggestion is to keep these available in the main review (this one) and have the separate articles and links to as an addition, not as a replacement.
Owned this lens for a bit. The lack of weight is really noticable and image quality at the long end seemed good enough to me. VR wasn’t really an issue on my Z7. Actually prefered it over the AF-P 70-300 as I’m not a fan of the FTZ.
It’s probably the least important thing about a lens but I really didn’t like the feel of the plastic, the difference between this and a native Nikon lens is really noticable to me. I also didn’t like the feel of the zooming mechanism, not as smooth as my 24-200.
I ended up selling it and going for the 100-400, great image quality but it is heavy for hiking. I have preordered the new 70-180 Nikon and also the 180-600 (for wildlife)which I think, between them, could replace the 100-400 to give lightweight on the one hand and reach with the other. I would be interested to see how image quality performs between the 70-300 and the 70-180 with a TC.
Looks like an affordable worthy addition to the Z lens lineup. It’s quite cheap, even if more expensive than the Sony version, the quality is good enough, and it’s light.
Great combo for an entry level full frame telephoto, and good enough for most purposes. For travel/hiking it gives more reach than the 24-200mm, but it’s hard to argue with omitting a lens entirely by using the 24-200. It would pair well with a 24-70mm f/4 however.
The combo of the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/3, 24-70mm f/4, and Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is a fantastic lightweight kit. I’m sure those would be the lenses in my travel bag, if I weren’t already content using the Z 24-200mm instead.