Is the 70-300 mm lens really worth over 600 $?

I have the Nikon D7000 and I bought the kit lens, the 18-105 and the 70-300 mm lens, with a portrait lens also… But on the Nikon box of the 70-300 mm, it says 579.99 plus tax. And seriously, is it really that much? And is the 70-300 mm lens good? I mean, I wanted it for sporting events and all that. Is it a good lens? And is it seriously over 600 $ ?

Welcome to the world of expensive Nikon glass, but that does seem a little overpriced. In the UK (which I know doesn't help you one jot) the 70 - 300 f4.5 - f5.6 VR lens is around £350.00, how that relates to Canadian $ I don't know, even then it's really a 'bright day' lens, in low lighting levels they are not much use.

Some people are willing to spend that kind of money, cos they think it is worth it…

i have a tamron 70-300mm lens that cost me under £100… And is a very good lens…

It is kind of like saying "Why does a Ferrari 599 cost $310, 000… It's just a car"

Photography is an expensive investment for someone who makes a living from it and an expensive hobby for the rest. You basically get what you pay for.

You're asking if $600 is worth it for a lens. I spent almost $500 on a flash and $1400 for a 70-200 f/2.8L lens, but they are needed for the work I do.

The nikon 70-300 VR is not the best lens there's. However, it is the best 70-300 for nikon and quite possibly the best affordable telezoom. I've used it extensively on my D300 and it has impressed me with optical performance, focus speed and built quality. I've shot it in pouring rain and near-blizzard conditions and it's still fine. Here's a selection of my work with it

Any thing you buy has a price. Whether it is worth it, is up to you.

My 70-200 mm f/2.8 now costs around $2, 400.Is it worth it? It is to me, but probably not to you.

One of my favorite lenses, the 200-400 mm f/4 lens costs nearly $7, 000. Without it, I could not shoot many of the sporting events I cover during the year. Is it expensive? Sure. Is it worth it? Absolutely. There's NO other lens that does what it does.

Whether you buy a lens has more to do with your needs as a photographer and whether there's an alternative choice that will suit your needs.

When choosing lenses, you have to consider many things. Price is only one of them.

Is an iPad with Wi-Fi and 3G worth over $800.It is to some people. Just look at the sales figures.

This is a personal choice and if you have the budget to afford such items, you can either buy it or not.

Is that the really price? Yes it is
it is worth it is excellent but not for pro jobs
if it excellent for travel walk around sports is good i have one and it works good
you have a good team
nikon is the best and personally better lenses than canon
i own both and nikon has better image quality and canon better movies

I wouldn't bother with the 70 - 300 f4.5 - f5.6, especially not at 600$Can (btw Screwdriver, exchange rate is roughly 1.6 Canadian dollers for £1 so £350*1.6 = 560$Can)

600$ is still in the cheap end of the lens pool. I got the 70-300 f4.5 - 5.6 SIGMA lens (ni image stabalization) for about 400$ and honestly, I hate it.

I do mainly weddings and portraits. The maximum aperture on this lens is horrible at 4.5 and even worse when you zoom in as it changes to 5.6. This makes this lens unsuitable for low light shooting (chruches or poorly lit stadiums).

The lens I plan on purchasing to replace this one with is a canon 70-200 f2.8 (2500$Can).

On top of having a FIXED maximum aperture of 2.8 (very wide opening) throught the whole local range, the glass used is of much higher quality resulting in better clarity AND the lens construction is All METAL and WEATHERPROOF.

The difference of f5.6 aperture and f2.8 is massive. That's stop stops of light. This means that I could reduce my ISO by two stops (so if I was shooting at ISO800 at f5.6, I could shoot at ISO100 at f2.8 and still get proper exposure) or increase my shutter speed by 2 steps to help freeze the action and reduce motion blur (So let's say I was shooting at f5.6 and 1/30th of a second, I could shoot at f2.8 and 1/125th of a second) or any combination of the above.

Example of settings resulting in equivalent exposure

Original shot at f5.6, ISO 800, 1/30th
Shot 1: at f5.6, ISO 1600, 1/60th
Shot 2: at f5.6, ISO 400, 1/15th
Shot 3: at f2.8, ISO 100, 1/30th
Shot 4: at f2.8, ISO 200, 1/60th

and so on so forth. All those settings result in a picture that has the same amount of light hitting the sensor. There are slight differences in the Depth of Field and in motion blur and so on but as far as QUANTITY of light, they are all 99.9 percent equivalent.

Like I mentionned there's also the difference in quality of construction, lens clarity, weatherproofing… Photography can be a VERY expensive hobby.