This lens is a good size and is very well constructed. It is also very well priced considering its sturdy construction compared to the lighter 80-200 available.

I found the lens a little slow and the lacking in the clarity stakes in the 200mm range. The push pull action is constantly drawing air into the lens, which means if you are in dustly locations like I was, the lens can get dust into it.

Good all purpose zoom but if your serious and don't mind the weight the 80-200 2.8 is the one to have. I upgraded and have never looked back.

Customer Service

Getting the dust removed was an expensive exercise

Similar Products Used:

80-200 2.8 no comparision but there is a considerable price difference

The built quality of this lens and the image quality/sharpness at the short end.

The is a push pull zoom so it will auto zoom when pointing lens up.

This is a excellent lens for the value. I have taken excellent and incredible sharp pictures with this lens at the short end of the zoom. The long end image quality is typical for this zoom range and price. The built construction is metal for inner barrel and plastic on the outside zoom/focus ring, compare to the new Nikon 70-300mm all plastic construction. They sure don't make them like they use to. The autofocus speed is on the slow and noisy side compare to the 70-300mm. Overall, its a good lens and you can find one used easily and cheaply on the market tody.

Customer Service

Never need it, thats the beauty of buying Nikon!

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 70-300mm ED, 28-105mm D, Sigma 28-70mm F2.8

I like the build quality of the lens, which gives it a solid feel. Fortunately, it is not too heavy (I consider a 80-200/2.8, but its price, weight and size are major barriers to overcome). Optically, this lens is very nice as well. I compared it to the newer 70-300 with ED glass, expecting the 70-300 to win, but I concluded that the 70-210 is a bit sharper at 200, full aperture. The lens has a full-sized focussing ring, which rotates over more than 90 degrees, allowing for manual focussing.

The minor nitpicks include a rotating front lens and the fact that it's a 210/5.6 (as opposed to 210/4 or 300/5.6). The 70-300 ED seems to render colours somewhat more vividly, though I only have one field test to conclude this from. I must say that, compared to my 24-50 zoom, the 70-210 seems to lack a bit of crisp, but perhaps this is only natural when comparing wide angle zooms to telephoto zooms.
After just over five years of usage, the focussing mechanism sounds a bit 'raw', so perhaps mine needs some servicing.

A very decent lens for its price. The 70-300ED may be more interesting for its slightly longer zoom range, but the difference isn't significant enough for me to make the trade (still wondering about a f/2.8, though). Good build quality, good optical quality.

Customer Service

None needed yet.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 70-300ED (field test only), very old Vivitar 80-200, AF Micro Nikkor 105/2.8

Small, crisp clear imaging

none

Excellant for portraits and candid photos and it is compact! Could use a better depth of field scale.

Customer Service

Great Service...I've used them only for Tech. support questions

Similar Products Used:

I have used Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Mamiya, Chinon

I'm not entirely sure I do like it. It does "ok".

No good tripod attachment. Not as sharp as I wish it was.

I haven't kept very many pictures taken with other than the shortest range on this lens. It may be me, it may be the lens. I'm simply not sure which. I do have a few nice shots taken at the less than 120 mm or so range, and some good wildlife shots at the far end of the range, but not much. Then again, it beats my old Sun with a very large, heavy stick.

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

None, but see review of sigma 170-500.