Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E and VR Telephoto Lens for DSLR, Black [Nital Card: -

My 'go to' lens for foreign trips. Lovely and light, easy to use and takes a great picture. Also quite robust and well-made and can function in appalling weather without any fuss, but make sure you dry the barrel before retracting.

This is a quality lens well designed with excellent optics that produces sharp images at all apertures

i bought this lens for my nikon d500 for the following reasonsits lightits sharpthe reach equivalant 450mm on cropped seasonits lightning fast auto focus on the d500its a perfect walkabout lens for wildlife

Just read on to find out…Nikon has been pretty systematic, but slow, in producing native lenses for its Z-mount – well, for FX at least, DX is a different matter! Unlike Canon, Nikon has concentrated for the most part on real-world lenses that photographers can actually afford. What’s more, the optical standard of these lenses has often been stellar, and consistently superior to their F-mount predecessors. But there remain some blindingly obvious gaps in the range, most notably a workhorse 70-300 F4.5/6.3 and 70-200 F4. Until Nikon pulls its finger out, Z-mount choices in these ranges are still not ideal, therefore.Let’s take a look at the versatile 70-300 range. Up until fairly recently, the only game in town was the F-mount Nikon AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6E ED VR (phew!), used with an FTZ adaptor. This is a well-liked, practical, proven and reliable combo, offering good image quality for the money, plus VR. But it’s heavier and clumsier than would be ideal. Now we also have a Tamron 70-300 F/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD to consider. Is it any good?Short answer - er… I think the Tamron is a disappointment and missed opportunity. Considered on its own, it’s OK, but, frankly, the Nikon is still the better lens. I had an opportunity to compare and optically test two examples of the Nikon and one Tamron (don’t ask…). Point-by-point, I can say:1) Both Nikons were sharper throughout the range, with superior rendering, colour saturation and microcontrast; the Tamron rather strikes me as soul-less and bland by comparison. But that’s just me…you might actually like this.2) Both display some field curvature and soggy corners at 70mm. And stopping down doesn’t altogether cure this. But, to my eyes, the Tamron is worse here.3) The Nikon has effective image stabilisation on board. This is a major plus, as - working in synch with FF bodies having IBIS - it makes for a higher hit rate of shots at the top of its focal range. Plus, and this could be a deal-maker/breaker for some, it’s perfectly usable with Nikon DX bodies without IBIS, like the Z50, 30 or Zfc. By contrast, the Tamron would definitely struggle here.4) The Nikon offers a half-stop advantage at 300mm. Every little helps, here.5) The Nikon feels more solid, chunky, and able to take everyday wear and tear.6) Frankly, IMHO the Tamron has only one thing going for it - it’s smaller and lighter than the Nikon with FTZ; but that’s really not good enough to swing it for me.So, what can we learn from all this?1) Stick with the Nikon if you have it, or get the superb Z-mount 100-400 if you can afford it and can carry it. Waiting for Nikon to produce this focal range in native Z-mount is probably unwise – this could take years!2) A good lens is always a good lens, and newer does not always mean better.So, I declare the winner here is - the Nikon, of course. And it wasn’t even close.

Although aimed at the enthusiast market, this lens would compare well with similar lenses costing five times as much. It is light, well-built and works on both full frame and DX formats. Image stabilisation is good and auto focus is fast. More importantly, it is sharp at all focal lengths: the image quality is excellent across the frame with little or no chromatic aberration or vignetting. Highly recommended.

Excellent product at good price. Speedy delivery