Nikkor Plastic 70-300 F/4-5.6 AF-D ED

This Nikkor 70-300 has been one of the most poorly reviewed Nikkor lens ever.

2023

For a reason: it was bad... cheap, super soft, lots of chromatic aberration, some distortion, not a super fast screw driven AF, made of plastic.

Anyways, that lens dating from the D1 series era was bad on low megapixels sensors. I remember trying one at Henry’s, and hating it.

For some reason, I got one last week for 20 bucks. Why not?

Well, it turns out this copy is really above the rest of the batch. I have no idea what is going on with this lens, but it’s super sharp, chromatic aberration is manageable, distortion is also well manageable. Really, its sharpness is quite good. 70mm F/4: sharp. 300mm F/5.6 not bad at all. 300mm F\7.1: sharp. F\/7.1 gets rid of the worst of the chromatic aberrations.

That is not what the reviews said. And not what I remember.

I think that very lens I got is the opposite of a lemon: I still wouldn’t recommend buying one. Most are really bad.

You may also like

Shooting the Sony A77 in 2022

If you have some A-mount lenses and want an APSC DSLR that can take them natively, you don’t have many options. Especially if you can’t / don’t want to spend a lot of money.

Sony RX100 m3: all you need from 24 to 70mm

I got this little camera for $200 a couple years ago and didn't write about it yet.

Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro

It took me some time to write about that A-mount lens I got NOS for 250 bucks. At that price, you will unlikely find any better F/2.8 telezoom.

Shooting the Sony Alpha 700 in 2022

I really never was really interested in Sony after they bought Minolta and started their "own" line of DSLRs. 15 years later, I buy a pristine Alpha A700 for peanuts and I quite like the Minolta DNA.

Birding with a cheap Sigma 135-400?

When it comes to birding, the common advice is to get a camera with low noise, fast AF, fast burst, big buffer and some long lens, preferably a super fast telephoto. It is indeed good advice, but you'll have to pay thousands of dollars to buy that gear, even on the used market. What if you want to shoot birds on a super tight budget? You'll still need some camera and lens. Maybe consider buying some older inexpensive gear?

Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF APO

How good can be a Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF lens from 1990? Simple answer: definitely worth 89 bucks BUT there are lots of BUT...

Improving cheap flatbed scans

I still shoot film from time to time, not enough to invest in am excellent neg scanner or bother trying to shoot my negs with a camera. I tried that, don't like it. I love the scanning - editing process.

Nikon N50 / F50 shooting Kodak UltraMax 400

I didn't shoot film for years. Didn't really plan to. Not that I don't like it, because I love film, but I just didn't have an opportunity to do so. When I saw that Nikon F50 with a 35-80 for 20 bucks, I just bought it. Ordered a new battery on amazon and a couple rolls of Kodak Ultramax 400

Olympus OM-D E-M5

August 2018 I bought that little camera for $150. Definitely a bargain considering it was sold boxed, in a not too bad condition, with less than 6.000 clicks, and included two batteries and charger, a 12-50mm F/3.5-6.3 zoom lens, a 45mm F/1.8 prime lens, the tiny Olympus flash, a couple filters (ND1000 and CPL) and a (slow) 64GB SD card that I just trew away and replaced with a Sandisk Extreme Pro.

Shooting the Nikon D200 in 2022

The D200 is a camera I always loved. At the time it came out, it was a hell of a camera for the price Nikon asked. Shooting it in 2019 is still a pleasant experience. 2005 specs? that's outdated, nobody wants that. Photos taken with that camera will be ugly, especially compared to the Sony A9 ($4500), the Nikon D850 ($3000) or the Canon 5D mark whatever ($2700). Or will it not?

↑Back to Top