55-200 vs 55-300 VR

[A/Ox4]

I have a 55-200 f/4-5.6 kit lens that came with my D3100*.

I was thinking of getting a 55-300 f4-5.6 VR and giving the 55-200 to my dad.

Is the 55-300 worth it? With the wider focal range, is there much distortion?


* I now shoot with a D5300.

 

[Braineack]

It's a decent lens. The 70-300 is better. The biggest downside is the slow focusing the biggest plus is the close focusing range.

 

[JoeW]

I have a 55-200 f/4-5.6 kit lens that came with my D3100*.

I was thinking of getting a 55-300 f4-5.6 VR and giving the 55-200 to my dad.

Is the 55-300 worth it? With the wider focal range, is there much distortion?


* I now shoot with a D5300.

Depends upon what you shoot. If you're shooting animals/wildlife, then 300mm is good to have. If you want to shoot sports, I'd go for a 200mm f2.8. I don't know what other lens are in your collection but a good wide angle would be great for landscape or buildings, or a macro lens, or a good 50mm prime that is fast. And you may already have those. But to me, unless you're shooting something that screams out for more distance, going from 200mm to 300mm isn't going to make that much of a difference (with of course, the exception depending upon what genres you shoot).

 

[Mr.Photo]

I've heard hit and miss reviews regarding the Nikon 55-300 lens. The more traditional upgrade as braineack mentioned above is to get the 70-300 VR. If you're on a bit of a tight budget Tamron also makes a 70-300 VC (Tamron's version of VR) that in my experiences with these two lenses (I have used both) is that the Tamron is actually sharper between 200-300mm wide open. Also I found that the VC on the Tamron allows me to take shots at shutter speeds significantly lower than the Nikon.

The Tamron can be had for as little as $350 new if you catch it when Tamron is offering their instant rebates on it which is considerably less than the $589 price tag on the Nikon. If buying used the Tamron becomes an even better deal as excellent condition ones can be had for as little as $250-275 where the Nikon tends to hold a much higher resale value ($375+).

When I upgraded from my 55-200 VR I went this route, and purchased the Tamron over the Nikon based on my info above from extensively testing the two lenses side by side. I have been extremely happy with my Tamron 70-300 VC.

 

[A/Ox4]

I only have a 55-200 and 18-55. I use the 18-55 most.

If anyones curious, I have my best of the best at Trey Spooner Photography to give you an idea.

 

[A/Ox4]

Well the Nikon 70-300 is $159 on Amazon (Grey Market)....

 

[Mr.Photo]

Well the Nikon 70-300 is $159 on Amazon (Grey Market)....

For that price it is likely not the VR version, and going Grey Market for a new or used Nikon lens (or any manufacturer for that matter) is a bad idea. If you have a problem with a lens and need it repaired you are going to be SOL. Nikon will NOT repair any lens new or used that is purchased "Grey Market", and I believe that now Tamron, and Sigma have adopted this policy as well.

 

[A/Ox4]

Ah ha. It is not the VR version. You're right.

As for grey market, that's another debate, but for a $150 lense, id be okay with it.


I'll probably get the 70-300 VR from Nikon any how.

 

[Derrel]

Ah ha. It is not the VR version. You're right.

As for grey market, that's another debate, but for a $150 lense, id be okay with it.


I'll probably get the 70-300 VR from Nikon any how.

Twice in the last month or so, the Nikon 70-300mm VR-G was sold as a Nikon USA refurbished lens, during ONE-day price specials for $269.95. I would expect similar pricing might be available on Black Friday, or at any time after that and up until New Year's.

 

[greybeard]

Well the Nikon 70-300 is $159 on Amazon (Grey Market)....

Yeah, that is the AF and not the AF-S VR. This lens focuses with a screwdrive that couples to the focusing motor on certain cameras. It won't autofocus on the D3XXX or D5XXX series cameras. As for the Nikon refurbished deals on the 70-300 VR, sad to say but I think I got the last one for now. Keep checking the sight
Refurbished AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED from Nikon
When the "Add to Cart" button appears, then they are back in stock.

 

[alv]

i had the 55-300,it was alittle soft at top end,triedtamron 70-300 vc ,for me it was better lens .gave 55-300 to my son he is happy.happy shooting. al some pics of both on flicker

 

[A/Ox4]

Okay so I think I'm going to spring for a 70-300 Tamron. If I can get a decent VC lense used I will, but otherwise I tend to buy new or refurb.

I was looking and there seem to be two versions, one for about $170 and one for $450. As far as I can tell the only difference is one is VC the other is not. Am I missing something? Should I spring for VC?

 

[Mr.Photo]

Definitely get the VC version. The non VC version is an older model, and has a completely different optical formula which is nowhere near as good as the more modern VC version. You should be able to find the VC version for around $275-300 used.

 

[A/Ox4]

Definitely get the VC version. The non VC version is an older model, and has a completely different optical formula which is nowhere near as good as the more modern VC version. You should be able to find the VC version for around $275-300 used.

That's the info I was hoping for.

I'll get a used VC

Thank you.

 

[Mr.Photo]

Definitely get the VC version. The non VC version is an older model, and has a completely different optical formula which is nowhere near as good as the more modern VC version. You should be able to find the VC version for around $275-300 used.

That's the info I was hoping for.

I'll get a used VC

Thank you.

No problem, you'll love that lens.