70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Nikon-f any good?

70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Nikon-f
any good?

Added (1). I need a good cheap macro lens and this is the best one i've found so far, does anyone have any idea if its good?

It's not a macro lens (irrespective of what it says in your description or on the lens).

The lens is effectively a paperweight. Image quality is so-so, but it's a slow lens, making it limiting for use except in well-lit conditions. And it's not capable of true macro images - it's just a marketing term to describe this lens as having moderate close-focus capability over a regular tele-zoom. It can, however, approach a 1:2 ratio, which is better than some other companies that call a 1:4 ratio a "macro" lens.

If you want to take macro shots (real ones, not the marketing ones), you'll have to look at lenses like the Micro-Nikkor 60mm or 105mm. The lens you're looking at sells for $139 where I live.

If you need a lens with the focal lengths of 70-300 mm, look at the Niikor AF-S 70-300 mm VR. When you follow the link below, you should see that there's going to be a huge difference in both build quality and image quality

As mentioned, true macro lenses are NOT zoom lenses. They are specially designed flat field lenses which are designed so that there's no pincushion, barrel distortion or vignetting.

Cheepo is truly what the Tamron lens is. The most economical Nikkor macro lens is the Nikkor AF-S 40 mm f/2.8

The best macro lenses can do a reproduction ratio of at least 1:1 or life-size meaning an ant that is 3mm long will appear 3mm long on the sensor which means on the screen, especially on the computer monitor, that 3mm ant will appear humongous. Here is a list of true macro lenses for the Nikon system.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...rtclk=sort

Choose by magnification ratio and by minimum focusing distance.