Nikon 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 vs. 70-300 f/4.5-5.6

[KmH]

The Aperture does control the light that gets to the sensor.

I could be wrong but I'd think that the larger front opening will allow more light to get to the Aperture.

The aperture is inside the lens, well behind the front lens element.

The front lens element is bigger for faster lenses, because the f-stop is a function of the focal length.

 

[Infidel]

Agreed. These two lenses have the same max aperture (f/4.5-5.6 in both cases) from one end of their focal range to the other, yet the 70-300 has a larger filter size (58mm vs 67mm).

 

[emh]

Also, I understand internal focusing to mean that the overall lens length does not change when focusing; does this also apply to zooming? I have used my father's 55-200, and the lens growth while zooming and focusing is a bit comical, and gives the lens a cheap, unprofessional look (reminds me of when film P&S cameras first had motorized zoom lenses).

A significant practical advantage of internal focusing is that the front element of the lens does not rotate during focusing. The front element rotating is a major pain when you use filters that rely on orientation like circular polarizers or graduated filters.

I think the 55-200mm doesn't allow instant manual override of focus in AF mode -- you have to switch to manual mode to do any manual focusing. The 70-300 lets you just turn the focus ring in any mode to MF. If the 55-300 is like the 55-200, that may be another plus in favor of the 70-300mm.

If the 55-300 is like the 55-200, it will have a plastic mount while the 70-300 has a sturdier metal mount.

Among those three factors and compatibility with FX bodies, I find the 70-300 well worth the extra $100 or so.

 

[Infidel]

If I recall correctly, the front element does NOT rotate on the 55-200mm, and I suspect this would be the same with the new 55-300mm. In any case, thanks for your post. As was mentioned by you and also earlier in the thread, the manual focus override is a nice advantage. I will keep saving my pennies.

 

[zamanakhan]

i think everyone is forgetting that the fx lens is inded an FX lens thus the bigger elements the lens needs to cover a larger area on the senser vs the DX the dx does not need to project a larger image and thus can be smaller the fx needs to project on a 35mm frame not half the size on a dx camera i doubt there will be much difference between either lens the extra image that is projected simply gets cropped off.
if your heart is set on a 70-300 focal length than the only thing to consider is do u want better build quality and compatibility to fx?
also if i can make another off topic recommendation... sometimes adorama and B&H have a sigma 70-210 f2.8, refurb or used on sale for the same price as the 70-300 its a much larger maximum aperture and more usable indoors as well, and alot of bang for ur $$$ hopefully i'll have the sigma by the end of sept

 

[shaunly]

Wait a months or two till someone does a review on this new 55-300 DX lens. The 70-300 is already known to be a GREAT lens. Very sharp and very well built. I use mine on a FX but I use to use it on the D90 as well. On the DX it's an incredible lens. I promise, you will not be disappointed.

 

[Vinny]

If you have a lens that will take care of the lower 55mm range, I would get the 70-300mm zoom also I wouldn't overlap lens ranges too much.

I haven't used it much but it is a nice sharp lens when I have used it. Since most people agree that it's a nice lens, you're getting a known good lens. Also, I personally wouldn't invest too much money on DX lenses as you may want a FX camera somewhere down the line and the DX lenses will need to be replaced.

 

[Ninja]

F stop is nothing more than a ratio between the size of the opening and the focal length.

On the 70-300 f5.6 at a 70mm focal length is a smaller hole than f5.6 at a 300mm focal length.

The opening at the end and the optics of each lens will control how much light gets to the Aperture.

Does that really matter though? The sensor for those two lenses are still receiving the same amount of light.

You can't use a faster shutter speed on a large lens max aperture F/4 than you can on a smaller lens max aperture F/4

Example:
EF 400mm F/4 DO IS USM
This lens has a HUGE opening in the front, its a lot larger than the EF 70-200mm F/4 USM, does this mean it can gather more light? The sensor received the same amount of light when both are wide open at F/4.

Edit: Im refering to what I said earlier:
"If you have a small opening lens with F/4 and 1/500 shutter speed, should have the same exposure as a lens with a huge physical opening with F/4 and 1/500 shutter speed."

The bigger front element does gather more light than the smaller one, but that's only significant when you shoot stars. A telescope with larger lens diameter will allow you to see much darker stars, so in the world of astronomy the diameter of the front element is what's considered the most important. Thats why when you look at the specs for astro telescopes, they emphasize the diameter of the lens, not the f stop value. Let's say you have two lenses of identical focal length but one has larger diameter front element. With identical setting (aperture, exposure, etc.) the larger lens would capture many more stars.

The picture below was taken using Nikkor 14-24mm zoom which has a huge front element, allowing it to capture millions of stars in just few seconds of exposure.

 

[Slaphead]

I have the 70-300 VR and I must say it is a cracking lens for it's price point. It's well built and has a very sharp good image quality, a very quick autofocus, and as others have mentioned it's also an FX lens.

I also have the 55-200 VR lens, and if the 55-300 is of similar build qaulity then I'd recommend the 70-300 without hesitation. Don't get me wrong, the 55-200 is fine as a consumer lens, not to mention sharp as well, but with it's plastic mount I doubt it's durability in anything other than an ocassional use role.

Of course we're still waiting on reviews and experiences, but if I needed to buy a telezoom right now it would be the 70-300.

 

[orb9220]

Yep will be interesting how the 55-300VR comes out. I have also owned both the 55-200vr and the 70-300vr. And the 55-200VR bar none is the Best Bang for the Buck lens out there in it's price range. Small compact and sharp. Tho like mentioned am always concerned about the build and what one good wack will do to it.

But still no contest as can pick up the 70-300VR that has been sitting around unused in primo shape for $400 used and still have I think a better overall zoom then even the 55-300 at the same price new.
.

 

[shakudu]

The bigger front element does gather more light than the smaller one, but that's only significant when you shoot stars. A telescope with larger lens diameter will allow you to see much darker stars, so in the world of astronomy the diameter of the front element is what's considered the most important. Thats why when you look at the specs for astro telescopes, they emphasize the diameter of the lens, not the f stop value. Let's say you have two lenses of identical focal length but one has larger diameter front element. With identical setting (aperture, exposure, etc.) the larger lens would capture many more stars.

Thats true with telescopes and binoculars since they dont have an aperture opening that all the light passes through. And they don't have to care about vignetting.

 

[Infidel]

Update: It's been speculated in various posts that the new 55-300mm lens would share a lot in common (build-wise) with the ubiquitous 55-200mm lens. This appears to be largely true, however it should be noted that the new 55-300mm lens indeed has a metal mount, not plastic.

Here's a link to a picture of the mount on everybody's favorite photography related humor site: Nikon 55-300mm VR

 

[boss_mex]

There is a group in flickr

Flickr: Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

You can see samples.

Honestly I did not like many of those photos.

 

[ulrichsd]

Boss, welcome to the forum. You are digging up a post from nearly a year ago. I don't have the 55-300, but it gets decent reviews for a consumer lens. If someone needs a small, light-weight tele-zoom to 300mm, thats going to be as small and light as it gets. If you're ok with the heavier weight, then get the 70-300mm. I enjoy mine.

 

[MagicMan0027]

I'm really a noob with photography. Will the 55-300mm or the 70-300mm be the best for photos of school cricket games ? I just need a lens for when my kids are playing their school games. Thank you