I have one bought recently. Depends on your use of the lens. It gives good basic macro photography but not the dramatic 1:1 and applicable only at 200mm and above. Telephoto wise, it gives good shot, although a little on the soft side. AF isnt as good as Nikkor, a lot of times I switch to manual for easier focusing. Just my 2 cents worth. Also a noob here.
Have been using this lens for a month or so. The only other tele I have used was the canon 70-200f4.
The 70-300 is a very basic lens. For the price that u are paying her, it is a great lens. However, you might have to drop the f-stop by quite a bit to get a reasonably sharp pic. The saturation is a little weak, but this can be easily overcome by doing some basic adjustment in CS.
Once u get the hang of the lens, u will be able to overcome the "slower AF".
So, for 1/2 the price of a 75-300, 1/3 the price of a 70-200f4 or canon 70-300, this lens is definately value for money.
it's a good value for money 300mm lens. I have it myself and didn't regret buying it. it was my primary macro lens for a period of time until i have enough money and upgraded to a 2nd hand 100mm macro (B&S was flooded with them when Tokina and Nikon launched new 100mm upgraded versions).
After using the 70-300 for almost a year, it provided good training and now handholding at 100mm is no longer any issue when doing my outdoor macros.