Reddit Reddit reviews Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

We found 37 Reddit comments about Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Digital Camera Lenses
Camera Lenses
Camcorder & Camera Lenses
Camera & Photo
Electronics
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
70 300mm telephoto zoom lens with f/4.5 5.6 maximum aperture for Nikon digital SLR camerasInternal Focus (IF) system provides fast and quiet autofocusing; 4.9 feet Minimum focus range, Focal Length Range : 70 300 mm.Two focus modes are available — M/A and MVibration Reduction (VRII) minimizes effects of camera shake to produce sharper images2 Extra Low Dispersion (ED) glass elements delivers super contrast and resolution performanceLens, frond and real cap, HB 36 Hood and CL 1022 Pouch / Packaging type : White box(Bulk Packaging)
Check price on Amazon

37 Reddit comments about Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras:

u/bolanrox · 7 pointsr/Nikon

you dont want super zooms theres a huge trade off with sharpness vs range.

You have to look for AF-s or AF-p on the lens to see if it has the motor built in to AF. Nikon lenses will also note DX for crop sensors, not to mention the huge price diffrence for FF glass.

  • This one does

    and this one doesn't
    .

    Also if you want a complete replacement for the kit lens the Nikkor 18-140 f/3.5 is fantastic. Its our go to walking lens. Will give you more than enough reach IMO for anything short of wildlife shots in normal use. That's what we used for the egg hunts yesterday. I have seen it go for $300 recently but it is usually $500 or so. I can honestly leave it on our body 99% of the time.

    The bulk of my IG page is that lens unless noted if you want some real world examples
u/TheSummerTriangle · 7 pointsr/Nikon

You definitely want this 35mm 1.8 DX. It's a steal of a lens, and often the only lens I bring with me on my DX bodies.

Sports is the hardest thing to shoot cheaply, especially if it's indoors/at night. VR won't help you there -- it doesn't un-blur moving objects, it only prevents blurring from the camera shaking in your hands. Your best bet is most likely the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6.

As for bags, I generally shoot out of a random backpack or shoulder bag. You can get a specialized camera bag if you want to, but I've found them to be overkill for me.

u/Consolol · 6 pointsr/photography

A 70-200 is long to someone who doesn't see superteles on a regular basis.

I've had comments like "wow, that's a nice camera" and I've been called "guy with the long lens (it was just a 70-300 with a hood)."

u/m00f · 6 pointsr/MLS

It's fucking annoying and stupid.


I have got warned at Warriors games for my 300mm zoom lens and was told to put it away. It certainly is not a "professional lens" but it looks that way to the ushers. Their guideline at Oracle was "a lens longer than 3 inches". WTF?


And, at the open practice for the USMNT at Candlestick I was told I could not bring in that 300mm lens at all and had to take it back to my car. "NFL stadium rules" they said. So far at Buck Shaw it hasn't been an issue. I didn't even try to test the waters at the game at Levi... I brought a smaller 55-200 zoom and they didn't say anything.

u/LanFeusT23 · 4 pointsr/Astronomy

He did not have access to a huge telescope :)

That was a 70-300mm lens on his camera, something like this. Most "huge" telescope would not have a big enough field of view to image the whole comet.

u/iiivf · 3 pointsr/photography

It appears this model, used, is around 300 dollars. If you sell the 18-105mm, as well as the third lens, she can probably keep the macro lens, and not need to spend much to get the 70-300mm. Again, granted she doesn't need the wider prespective in that she loses by not using the 28-300mm. 28-70mm is a very common range, and valuable if she does any shooting indoors. She will find herself with her back up against the wall shooting with a minimum focal length of 70mm.

u/ironic5589 · 3 pointsr/photography

So i'm in the exact same boat as you, i'm not a pro by any means and i love my D7000. My only gripe is they software limit of 3 frame bracketing, it bugs the crap out of me. However, i'm sure my next upgrade will be a FX body so i have tried to balance which lenses i buy. I would recommend looking on craigslist for some used fast glass. You have to be carefull but you can find someone decent every once and awhile.

This depends on your budget but these are the lenses i own currently and they seem to cover most of my needs.

50 1.8 AF-S FX - A must have i would say, super sharp a great lenses but can be a little tight indoors due to the crop factor

Nikon 70-300 FX - I really like this lens. I think it focuses faster than the 55-200 my girlfriend has and i find it to be fairly sharp. The only downside is that it not fast glass, so gett a 70-200 2.8 if you want top of the line and are willing to spend $1500 more.

Nikon 28-70 Fx 2.8 - This is the older version of the 24-70 2.8 and i picked it up used off of craigslist. This has been my GO TO lens. Its a little heavy but i have used it as a walk around. I will say the only downside is the 28 is not very wide on a dx body and you can really tell the difference between it and the 18mm kit lens.


I have a range of DX lenses as well but my girlfriend usually uses those on her d90 and i wouldn't recommend them if you have the budget and know that you will upgrade to FX at a later date. I would almost recommend buying a used kits lens off of craigslist, a 18-55 usually runs $100 bucks or so. The reason being that its hard and expensive to find FX glass below 24. There is the 14-24 but that will set you back. The 18mm on a kit lense will give you that wide side for when you need it for super cheap and decent sharpness.

GL

u/Iamthetophergopher · 3 pointsr/photography

EDIT: Just realized pics 2-4 are of different lenses, flip them around and show us the other end. Assuming you have a 18-55 and maybe a 55-200 or a 18-135. Can't tell from the photos.

Google will be your friend:

First picture is the camera body, Nikon D40x, a decent but older camera, 10 MP, a pretty decent camera for a starter kit. Amazon for the camera and the kit lens

SEE EDIT: Second picture through the fourth are shots of what looks to be the Nikon "kit" lens, or the one that most likely came with his camera. 18-55mm, which is sort of the standard cheap but good zoom lens (zoom meaning adjustable) that gives you a mix of wide angle and a little bit of reach for farther away shots. This is most people's beginning lens.

Next comes a sensor brush. The sensor of a digital camera uses electrically sensitive sensor chips to capture an image, with a common downside being that the static of the charge can attract dust. This brush is specifically designed to attract said dust to it instead of the sensor for cleaning. I wouldn't recommend trying to clean the sensor yourself until you've read up on exactly what to do.

Next is a flash, I don't know much about this model, unfortunately, but flashes can run from a few bucks to hundreds of dollars, depending on the tech and quality. Assuming it is a real SB-600, it's a pretty solid flash and sells on Amazon for a few hundred bucks

The next one is the 70-300 Nikon lens, this is a telephoto zoom, meaning it's variable in zoom, but starts at a pretty modest telephoto range of 70mm to a really long 300mm. This is good for sports and such. Amazon link

Most of the rest of this stuff is miscellaneous gear:

Next photo is a flash cord, this allows you to control your flash (the SB-600) without having to have the flash on top of your camera. This allows for greater creative flexibility in your lighting. Most pro/sumers use wireless triggers nowadays, but a connected flash cord is great bceause it rarely fails. Cheap part.

Next are a series of converters. The wide conversions take your lens at whatever focal length it is set at, say 18mm with that 18-55. This then "converts" the image your camera sees to a wider image, say a 12mm, giving you a wider field of view. The teleconverters do the opposite, lengthening the focal length, say from 300mm to 400-something. This will allow you to zoom in deeper. The issue with these sometimes is that since they implement an additional layer of glass between the subject, your lens, and the camera, the quality of the converter can degrade photo quality and you get in less light, meaning you need to adjust the camera settings to capture what you want, sometimes making a shot impossible to get, or at least difficult. I don't know enough about these Nikon ones, but for Canon, they vary in price from $50-400 or more.

The rings look like lens adapters, allowing you to adapt lenses from other manufacturers to the camera. Can't tell what they're for, though. Does he have other non-Nikon lenses around?

I think the Stroboframe is to hold flashes or strobes off of the camera and also has an additional grip.

The rings with tinted glass are filters of some kind, placed at the end of your lens to produce an effect, like polarizing the image, reducing how much light goes through (ND filter) or cuts out some of the UV light that might be hitting your sensor. Can't tell what you have there, though. One of them says PL, that's most likely a polarizer. Both of them will fit a lens that has a 37mm threaded end, which will be written on the side of the lenses.

The last picture is a battery grip. This slides into the battery housing on the bottom of the camera, and provides controls for shooting vertically, as well as carrying 2x batteries instead of one for longer battery life. Makes for a chunkier camera, which is nice in a studio, but sort of sucks when you're out hiking or trying to be discreet.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

u/MacGyverisms · 3 pointsr/photography

I can't really recommend the DX 55-300 either, especially for wildlife photography. I find the focusing to be highly inaccurate and slow, and that's with stationary subjects. It's most noticeable at the the 300mm end of the lens. Anything moving (like wildlife) is going to be really difficult to get in focus. The manual focus ring is also very touchy, which is something to consider if you'll be using it often. I still keep mine around for that odd graduation or other event where I need the extra reach, but most of the time it sits on my shelf collecting dust. That being said, I've heard good things about the Nikon 70-300mm. The AF is faster, and it's compatible on FF cameras. You also get the same aperture range as the 55-300mm. This is the lens I wish I picked up instead of my 55-300mm. Make sure you pick up the AF-S version I've linked if you have a camera in the D3000-5000 like I do. Those ranges don't have built in focusing motors and thus you need an AF-S lens. If you have a D7000 and up though, you can save yourself a bit of money and buy the older version of the lens. You forgo VR and a few other things, but save yourself $350. Good luck!

u/NuStone · 2 pointsr/photography

Hey, all.

I'm heading to Israel in a couple of months and have never been before. I'm extremely excited to do as much shooting as possible while there, but I'd like to make sure I have the gear to take the best advantage I can.

I own a Nikon D3400 camera with a kit lens I hardly use. I also own a Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G prime lens that I use for most of my shooting. I mostly do portraits and street photography, though I'd also like to do more architectural / landscape photography while in Israel. What I'm looking for is a recommendation on what kind of lens would be best for this kind of work, and perhaps even a specific lens that would fit what I'm looking for - budget is at most around $600.

This is what I'm looking at right now.

Thanks for any advice you can give!

u/Evanescent_contrail · 2 pointsr/birdpics

Thanks, that's useful, I agree. Yes, that's the lens (specifically this one).

I'm probably a ways off from a completely new zoom, although the 500mm lens looks real nice.

u/SickSalamander · 2 pointsr/photography

Get a 70-300mm VR instead. You can get a refurbished one for $340. That is well within your budget.

u/cjvcook · 2 pointsr/photography

stretching the budget to the 70-300 VR gets you a step up in image quality and focus speed: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1449091555&sr=8-2&keywords=300mm+vr

You'll struggle with this indoors and night games though to, you really need a fast lens for that.

u/EnclaveLeo · 2 pointsr/photography

Of course! It depends on your budget and what you want to photograph, but I highly recommend the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can find it used for even less than the price listed ($200) as well. The lens is really sharp and decent for landscape and portraits. You can set your 18-55mm to the 35mm focal length to see what it looks like.

If you want a higher focal length than your 18-55mm, look at the 55-200mm lens. It is a kit lens sometimes bundled with the 18-55mm. There's also a 70-300mm if you want the extra 100mm range. These are usually best for something you need to zoom in on, like sports and wildlife.

If you want something super wide, I recommend either a Tokina 11-20mm or the Tokina 11-16mm. The 11-20mm is the sharpest and fastest autofocus of the two, but it is slightly more expensive. They are both good lenses. These are great for astrophotography, landscapes, and indoor architecture shots.

Here is an example picture of what different focal lengths look like. I hope this was helpful! If you have any more questions or want me to clarify something, let me know.

u/PeperonyNChease · 2 pointsr/Nikon

This 70-300mm will give you plenty of reach. From what I understand it's a pretty good zoom lens for the price, although a bit large. It should be a step up from the cheaper version. On the other hand, the 55-200mm is a budget option and a good compliment to the kit lens, however I have to say the build quality is very cheap. I don't really like using mine because it feels so plasticy. The optical quality is solid, though.

You could also get a superzoom like the 18-140mm. That will give you a ton of range in one lens.

u/LV426- · 2 pointsr/photography

What's a good zoom lens that won't break the bank for an amateur photographer (will probably use it to photograph wildlife on hikes, etc.)? My budget is about $500. I'm looking at this Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. The general consensus seems to be that it's quite good up to 200 and then isn't so great after that.

Are there any better alternatives? (I'm looking at the used market as well, and the above lens is about ~$350 there, and my camera is a D5600).

u/briguy19 · 2 pointsr/photography

What type of photography are you using it for? Those 70-200s are crazy expensive for a hobbyist. If you're taking pictures outdoors during the day, something like the 70-300 4-5.6 will be good for under $600. I actually bought a used copy of the Tamron version of that lens for $250. Make sure you get the one with the IR/VR/VC, thought. All 3 manufacturers make a cheap (~$150) version of the same lens that's pretty bad.

u/ja647 · 2 pointsr/photography

Saying "I shoot manual" is false bravado.

If you want to control the depth of field, shoot aperture priority.

If you want to control/stop motion, use shutter speed priority.

I think your best bet in a lens would be a Nikon or Tamron 70-300. Be sure to get the VR (Nikon) or VC (Tamron) version. Used they are around $300. [Link here.] (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464050783&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+70-300)

Used from a reputable seller is fine.

u/JimmySticks2001 · 1 pointr/Nikon

I also have a D3300 and I just received my 70-300mm. I decided on this after about 2 weeks of researching telephoto lenses. Since there are newer models of the lens the price of this one has dropped to a nice price range for my entry into a zoom lens. The autofocus is impressive for an older lens and the stabilization is nice, although it took some getting used to at first. It doesn't stabilize when not actively shooting. It only kicks in after autofocusing, or I guess, whenever pressing half-way down on the shutter button. It took some getting used to as my kit lens is always stabilized.

I love it so far. I have only taken it out once at dusk/sunset and the low light performance was excellent. I got a neat picture of a boat dog.

u/ChocolateWatch · 1 pointr/photography

For that budget, the Nikon 70-300 f4-5.6. It's a consumer lens, so it's not stunning, especially at 300mm, but it's a good choice for your budget.

u/ConnorRoss · 1 pointr/astrophotography

Gear


Nikon 70-300 f/4.5G


Nikon D610


Hoya Pro ND 1000



Settings

1/4000

300mm

f/40

ISO 50

u/JasonZX12R · 1 pointr/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

I have a friend that thinks its useless as well. I have had a few debates with her about it. I have this zoom lens

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1268238244&sr=8-4

And while it wont work miracles in low light, it does help. Even in daylight it helps to get solid shots. These were both taken on a boat. Neither are good photos, just junk stuff, but help illustrate some VR help. The one was taken at 1/500 other at 1/1000 so the help may be dubious, but the one was at 300mm. Couldnt find any other long shots I took from a boat =)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3486729087/in/set-72157617492273220/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3535315600/in/set-72157618132893297/

u/Flojani · 1 pointr/photography

Could anyone explain to me the differences between these two lens? Could someone also tell me which would be better and why? The more detail the better! If which camera they will be used on matters... It'll be a Nikon D5200.

Lens 1: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Lens 2: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX

u/KaJashey · 1 pointr/photography

I shot stunning equine pictures with a Nikkor 70-300 VR on a crop camera. I would take your longest zoom. How far does your kit reach?

You generally have a lot of things going for you. Lots of light. The owners and riders have put enormous work into their horses and their sport. You are generally shooting up at the riders and they look heroic/equestrian

Treat it like sports photography and try and freeze them with 1/500th of a second or faster shots. Get on the end of the ring and shoot them oncoming with a long zoom. Think about what is behind them.

u/kylake · 1 pointr/Nikon

Hi, this is a rather interesting question! First of, congratulations on your decision to get the D7100! There are plenty of Nikon Len(s) to choose from and given that you might eventually head towards more wildlife and landscape kind of photography you will need mainly 2 kinds of lens. This is based on my opinion and the thoughts may vary differently across different photographers.


Wildlife Lens:

  1. Get something with a wider focal range. For starts you should aim for something that is at least 100m-200m. If you are really serious about it there are prime lenses such as the Nikon 300m f2.8 and the Nikon 500m f4 that being said prime lenses with a lower aperture will definitely cost a lot more.

  2. Take into consideration whether you prefer a zoom or prime.

  3. If you are going for a zoom, for starts, you might want to consider the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 which can be doubled up as a really good portrait lens.

  4. The 70-200m above as mentioned is super versatile and 1 of the 3 "trinity lens for Nikon", the other 2 being the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lens.

  5. I really recommend getting the 70-200mm as you might end up saving a lot of money at the end of the day; go straight for the cream.


    Landscape Lens:

  6. This kind of lens varies a lot from other lenses as it might differ from photographer to photographer how wide is a wide lens and what kind of landscape you might want to take.

  7. Judging based on your question on the quality wise, I own a Nikon 24mm f1.4 and the quality of the photos that come out are splendid. I personally choose Prime over Zoom as I seek for quality imo.

  8. A 35mm prime is another option as well as it doubles up as a very good lens for portrait and street photography. Another way to counter an issue with the "wideness" of the lens is to be skilful at Stitching Photos which can be referred to from here at Adobe Photoshop.

  9. This method can greatly allow you to save up on money and be a more versatile photographer at home/work if you don't mind the hassle of editing and stitching the photos up.

  10. An ideal lens would be anything below 24mm if you really want to capture as much detail of the landscape as possible.


    Quality of Lens:

  11. There are many levels of quality which Nikon has to offer and of which are mainly differentiated by the kind of glass/plastic or in other words materials they use for their lens.

  12. Types of Lens

  13. Quality as well varies between the user, do you want something which has auto focus or manual focus might be one of the first questions you ask.

  14. If you've decided on that, and judging from what I see, you are seeking for under $200 for something used. In my opinion you should get the 24mm prime if you have got enough money to spare. Get one of the basic Nikon 50mm - its like nearly every Nikon photographer has this correct me if I am wrong

  15. Alternatively you can check out this link: http://www.cameraegg.org/best-lense-for-nikon-d7100/ for some of the top picks people have.


    Conclusion:

  16. If you are seeking for an everyday lens, get one of the standard zoom lens for your D7100.

  17. If you are aiming to upgrade to a full-frame camera in the future, it might be more ideal to get the fx lenses, like what I've mentioned the 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200.

  18. For wildlife and landscape at the same time, for the budget you've mentioned, I recommend the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6

  19. One Of The Sources


    I hope some of my basic insights can narrow down your choice of lens and help you understand better based on the sources I have provided, alternatively you might wanna check youtube out too for extra information, there are lots of peeps there who do reviews :)
u/Yycdani · 1 pointr/photography

I want to get a new telephoto lens, I currently have a ancient Nikon 70-300 without image stabilization and it's crap, and I am looking at the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD or the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Should I bother with either of these? I don't want to spend that much money on another disappointing lens, but a really good telephoto is way out of my budget at the moment. I couldn't spend more than around $800 CAD (so like $3.50 USD - jokes, more like 500-600USD) and alternatively I just wait and save and take photos with other lenses and of other things. I'm a hobbyist.

u/britchesss · 1 pointr/Nikon

Sorry to keep up with questions and links, but is thiswhat you're talking about?

u/MeMuzzta · 1 pointr/photography
u/Kmccb · 1 pointr/videography

Thanks for the reply!

I've just never had luck trying to record with it.. I have a Nikon 70-300 that I use with it and while trying to record I just have issues with focusing and zooming smoothly etc..

u/graffiti81 · 1 pointr/gardening

Most brands, whether we're talking cannon, nikon, pentax etc, will have both brand name and off brand macro lenses available. Sigma makes a pretty good lens.

As I said, my 70-300VR (which isn't a macro) will still take decent macros, so you don't absolutely have to have a 1:1 lens.

u/k_uger · 1 pointr/photography

I shoot Canon, but for that Budget Nikon has a much better selection. Body doesn't matter so much, but a faster frame rate and more AF points will be helpful for birds. If you can afford it, I would recommend a d7200. If not, go for the d5500. You could even go super cheap and buy a refurbed older body (d7000 etc.).

The d7200 has a faster frame rate, more AF points, more cross type AF points, and a more rugged build. The d5500 has a tilty touch screen, and is much lighter. Most other differences are trivial (sensor is exactly the same).

For a lens, I can personally recommend the 18-200mm VR II DX f/3.5-5.6 (~$600). It's a great zoom for just about anything. If you need to get tighter, consider the 70-300mm VR DX FX f/4.5-5.6 for a little less money. If you want to spend a little bit more, I also had a 28-300mm VR FX f/3.5-5.6 (~$1000), which is an absolutely fantastic, but extremely heavy lens. Also much more expensive.

If your dad's only going to be shooting birds and wildlife, I would say the tighter 70-300mm would be great. For a do-all zoom, I would go for the 18-200mm or the 28-300mm if I could afford it.

These are just my personal reccomendations, somebody might have some better suggestions.

Here are the amazon links:
Nikon d5500
Nikon d7200
Nikon 18-200mm VR II DX
Nikon 70-300mm VR DX FX
Nikon 28-300mm VR FX See edit below

Edit: mistakes

Edit 2: I just realized there's an 18-300mm VR DX for the same price as the 28-300mm VR FX, which would make much more sense if you plan on sticking with DX. Optics should be virtually the same, just better designed for DX.

u/vurt · 1 pointr/photography

Is it worth it to buy FX lenses for a DX/APS-C camera? I'm looking at picking up this Nikon 70-300mm as my first decent lens beyond my kit lens that came with my D3300. I was told by a fellow photographer that I should just save the extra money and get something like this instead. I don't believe I'll ever be purchasing a full frame camera as I cannot justify the cost for a simple hobby. I'm mostly getting into photography just to get myself outside and off my ass. I also really enjoy a creative outlet and the post-processing stuff is very helpful in that regard.

So long story short, does that Tamron lens really gain me anything other than a faster aperture and the ability to upgrade to a full frame body down the road, however unlikely that may be?

u/Regrenos · 1 pointr/photography

Consider the 70-300mm or 55-300mm or 300mm f/4 instead. The first is a very good quality zoom lens that will allow you to change zoom for framing, the second is a cheaper version of the same, and the third is a very good prime. I have the 55-300mm and I found that I use it for birds and such, almost 99% of the time at 300mm. I think if I were to reconsider the purchase I would go for the 300mm f/4, epecially because it allows the use of teleconverters. If you go for the 18-300mm, you sacrifice a large amount of quality in all focal lengths. It isn't worth it. With the budget you have for the 18-300mm, you can get the 70-300mm and gain quite a lot of quality or the 300mm prime and find yourself with an amazing birding/wildlife lens. If you stick a 2x teleconverter on there, you have 960mm f/8 lens on an APS-C body - basically a telescope, but also amazing for birds (but a little lacking in low light).

u/-twrm- · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

and this one but im not too sure

u/pranav_koundinya · 1 pointr/Nikon

It’s this one : Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_4xNIAbRZJWGS8

I haven’t tried the AF-P lens but this lens is soft beyond 200mm. I’m considering upgrading to the 70-200 f/2.8 though.