Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

Poll: Rate this lens (14 member(s) have cast votes)

Rate this lens

  1. 1 Star (appalling) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. 2 Stars (below par) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 3 Stars (average) (5 votes [35.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.71%

  4. 4 Stars (above average) (7 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  5. 5 Stars (outstanding) (2 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Dallas

Dallas

    Fotozones Owner

  • Administrators
  • 18,181 posts
  • LocationDurban, South Africa
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 31 October 2007 - 16:42

Please post your opinions of this lens here. This topic will be indexed on our LENSES page.

Support Fotozones:  

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama | B&HThinkTankPhoto | Digital REV | OWC 

Alternatively you can DONATE via PayPal (donor list)

 

Follow Me On: social-facebook-box-blue-icon.png social-twitter-box-blue-icon.png YouTube-icon.png google-icon.png 


#2 STSinNYC

STSinNYC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • LocationNew York
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 15 August 2008 - 05:32

A very average lens in my experience, on our D200 and D70s. Color is ok, little distortion, focuses relatively quickly, but it just isn't very sharp, most noticeable at the long end. I use our AI 80-200 4.5 late version (rectangular blind) most of the time for this focal range.
  • Wannabe likes this

#3 Chris Knapton

Chris Knapton
  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • LocationNOTTINGHAM

Posted 15 August 2008 - 07:19

It may not be contrasty sharp but it's a lovely people lens with surprising sharpness for other uses. Mine cost me 54/$108 on eBay and it's a lovely lens that I use a lot. Slow focussing but I was brought up on manual focus so I don't find it a problem.

Attached Images

  • wedding_79.jpg

  • Wannabe likes this

#4 aroundomaha

aroundomaha

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 04 December 2008 - 23:18

Value and above average quality
I find this to be a surprising lens which when used wisely is a profound bargain (I paid less than $70 on Ebay for one). What I mean by this is that you shouldn't expect to bag great shots at in in-door basketball game, but when I have taken it to the zoo it and used it in good light, it has performed well even wide open. I'm looking through my online galleries to find an example and will try to post one up when I do.

There are only two things that I would fault with the lens, very slow focus and I find the bokeh to be a little raspy or rough. Other than that I plan on keeping mine even though I already own the 80-200mm af-s. The 70-210 is a LOT lighter and I took it with me to Mount Rainier when weight mattered!

Here is a shot that is probably wide open (f/5.6 at maximum zoom).
Posted Image

Buy one, they're cheap and will do a good job!
  • Wannabe likes this

#5 anabasis

anabasis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationSouthold, NY
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 30 March 2009 - 18:48

I have the slightly rarer "D" version of this lens that KR goes ga-ga over.  I got the lens in 1993 and it has served me well over the years.  IQ is decent and the focusing (apparently much improved over the non-D version) is fairly quick for a screwdriver lens.

This is a one-touch/push-pull zoom and it suffers from a bit of lens creep when pulled out to 210mm and aimed skyward, but I've seen worse. 

While it can't offer the same IQ as my 70-200 VR, it does well for its price and is a heck of a lot more portable.

JCA
  • Wannabe likes this

#6 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 5,635 posts
  • LocationTasmania, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 15 April 2009 - 01:45

The lens which taught me the lesson of opting for the gold ring level over the intermediate lenses. I bought this lens in 1993 (AF-D version) along with the rest of a comprehensive F4-based outfit, and traded it back four weeks later on an 80-200 f:2.8 AF-D which I still have and swear by. Sometimes the $$ do count (as did the $$ I lost on that deal).

The 70-210 was the most "ordinary" lens I can ever remember owning (aside from the odd atrocious Sigma that stop-gapped my lens lineup from time to time), and calling it "ordinary" is being very, very kind to it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.