Nikon 55-300 Vr vs 70-300 VR for an Amatuer

[psran]

Now before every one tries to Curse me for why I have not searched the forums before asking this question, I request you read my specific requirements

I am an Amateur and the usual Focal Length that I use is 17-70 for which I have a Sigma 17-70 & 50 F1.8 G but I may occasionally use the Longer Focal Length while on Trips for Birding,etc

1.So as you may note, AF speed is not so much of Concern but the Lens should not Miss focus very regularly

2 Photos should be Crisp Out of camera

3. Price should be so that it offers maximum Bang for Buck

4. Compactness if possible would be appreciated though not a must

 

[Braineack]

I'm an amatuer; I went from the 55-300 to the 70-300mm...

 

[ruifo]

The 70-300mm sounds better to me, but that's really up to you.

Maybe these links might help your needs, style and budget, have a look and have fun:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/269020-55-300mm-vr-70-300mm-vr.html

Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - Our Analysis

Amazon.com: Questions And Answers: 55-300mm vs 70 - 300 mm: Why is the Nikon 70-300 mm VR more expensive than the 55-300Mm

Nikkor 55-300 VR or Nikkor 70-300 VR?

 

[robbins.photo]

Now before every one tries to Curse me for why I have not searched the forums before asking this question, I request you read my specific requirements

I am an Amateur and the usual Focal Length that I use is 17-70 for which I have a Sigma 17-70 & 50 F1.8 G but I may occasionally use the Longer Focal Length while on Trips for Birding,etc

1.So as you may note, AF speed is not so much of Concern but the Lens should not Miss focus very regularly

2 Photos should be Crisp Out of camera

3. Price should be so that it offers maximum Bang for Buck

4. Compactness if possible would be appreciated though not a must

I curse you! A pox on you and thine offspring!

What? Were all out of pox? Seriously? Ok fine.. but in 4 to 6 weeks buddy.. oh.. brother...

Lol

I'm also an amateur, and I use the 70-300 mm. Always gotten good, sharp results from it, no complaints. Also I'm not sure about the 55-300 but one of the things I really appreciate about the 70-300 is all the focusing is internal, so the barrel doesn't rotate - may not sound like a big deal but when I use a CPL it's nice to know I can dial it in and set it and not worry about it after that.

 

[Braineack]

1.So as you may note, AF speed is not so much of Concern but the Lens should not Miss focus very regularly

2 Photos should be Crisp Out of camera

3. Price should be so that it offers maximum Bang for Buck

4. Compactness if possible would be appreciated though not a must

1. My 55-300 would miss a lot. And even when it didn't miss it's the way it focuses/miss. If something is JUST out of focus, it always seemed to take the long way to focus, so bringing it further out until it hits the stop then coming back, maybe missing, hitting the other stop, then finally finding focus.

The 70-300 is MUCH improved in that department: If you're close to focus, the lens quickly and accurately brings it back without issue.


2. The image quality is hard to tell between the two for the average user, but it is there.

I've taken a few shots with teh 55-300 that I was sorely disappointed with.

This one comes to mind: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...AAHHg/eVCeMeGWhhk/w768-h512-no/DSC_2135_5.JPG.

It was 1/250sec but it was also shot at 3200iso on my D3100 so that didn't help. But I've taken better shots with ym cell phone...

But then I've also been able to nail shots with a crazy slow shutter speed, so I dunno.

Here's a set with my d3100 with the 55-300: https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/...ms/5923601633464658849?authkey=COPbjdWYs43PYA
(just the crabs and pumpkins were with another lens)

I'm getting better shots with my 70-300mm, but I've also practiced and improved a lot in the meantime.


3. The 50-300 probably wins here, you can pick them up for under $200 used. I think I ended up selling mine for ~$140 to keh.com.


4. The 55-300 is smaller, not by much.

Another thing to think about is if you'll be ever using a CPL or want to ever maunal focus. there's no override on the 55-300 and the focus ring is on the very end is a joke to try to use. The front element also rotates when focusing. It's also a DX lens and can't be used on a FF camera if you ever want to upgrade, where the 70-300 can carry over.

 

[psran]

1. My 55-300 would miss a lot. And even when it didn't miss it's the way it focuses/miss. If something is JUST out of focus, it always seemed to take the long way to focus, so bringing it further out until it hits the stop then coming back, maybe missing, hitting the other stop, then finally finding focus. The 70-300 is MUCH improved in that department: If you're close to focus, the lens quickly and accurately brings it back without issue. 2. The image quality is hard to tell between the two for the average user, but it is there. I've taken a few shots with it that I was sorely disappointed with. This one comes to mind: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-65BWxoN7si8/UiNemO5WFyI/AAAAAAAAHHg/eVCeMeGWhhk/w768-h512-no/DSC_2135_5.JPG. It was 1/250sec but it was also shot at 3200iso on my D3100 so that didn't help. But I've taken better shots with ym cell phone... But then I've also been able to nail shots with a crazy slow shutter speed. Here's a set with my d3100 with the 55-300: https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/100223015524166410695/albums/5923601633464658849?authkey=COPbjdWYs43PYA (just the crabs and pumpkins were with another lens) But I think I'm getting better shots with my 70-300mm, but I've also practiced and improved a lot in the meantime. 3. The 50-300 probably wins here, you can pick them up for under $200 used. I think I ended up selling mine for ~$140 to keh.com. 4. The 55-300 is smaller, not by much. Another thing to think about is if you'll be ever using a CPL or want to ever maunal focus. there's no override on the 55-300 and the focus ring is on the very end is a joke to try to use. The front element also rotates when focusing. It's also a DX lens and can't be used on a FF camera if you ever want to upgrade, where the 70-300 can carry over.

I feel this is a Comprehensive reply to all my queries.

One last query, say I have a Nikon 55-300 for which I have got Bidder for 220$ and I could buy a used 70-300 for around 350$ what should I do

 

[JohnnyWrench]

The 70-300 VR is a great lens for the price. I've shot several college football games with it from the sidelines with my D700 and it rarely missed focus. I have no experience with the 55-300 but I can say with confidence you will not be disappointed with the 70-300.

 

[Braineack]

One last query, say I have a Nikon 55-300 for which I have got Bidder for 220$ and I could buy a used 70-300 for around 350$ what should I do

where are you located? The 70-300 can buy bought used for just under $300: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999088447J?r=FE

this is where i got mine.

they dont seem to have any used 55-300s right now. but you can check adorama or other well known vendors to see.

 

[goodguy]

I feel this is a Comprehensive reply to all my queries.

One last query, say I have a Nikon 55-300 for which I have got Bidder for 220$ and I could buy a used 70-300 for around 350$ what should I do

Sell the 55-300mm and get the 70-300mm VR

I got mine used for 280$ and I know of others who got their lenses for even less.
With some patience you will be able to find a used 70-300mm VR for good price.

 

[shadowlands]

70-300 VR all day!!! It's FX, so you're safe if DX fades.
Also, it's only $350.00 refurbished....

 

[raventepes]

You'll only find 2 lenses better (In the focal range) than the 70-300, which are both of Nikon's 70-200's, f/2.8 and f/4, respectively, however, the 80-400 VR (though expensive) is an outstanding lens too, from what I've seen of it. But again, you're asking between 70-300 and the 55-300. The 70-300 is the all round better lens. Outside of a few MM from the 55 version, there's nothing that the 70-300 version can't beat the other, in spades with.

Your call.

 

[PaulWog]

You'll only find 2 lenses better (In the focal range) than the 70-300, which are both of Nikon's 70-200's, f/2.8 and f/4, respectively, however, the 80-400 VR (though expensive) is an outstanding lens too, from what I've seen of it. But again, you're asking between 70-300 and the 55-300. The 70-300 is the all round better lens. Outside of a few MM from the 55 version, there's nothing that the 70-300 version can't beat the other, in spades with.

Your call.

70-200 f2.8 Tamron
70-200 f2.8 Sigma

 

[gwhiz]

I just bought the 70-300 VR yesterday and although I haven't had a chance to really test it out, the initial shots I took around the house were shockingly good. I was expecting quality comparable to the 18-55 kit lens but found that the 70-300 has much better clarity and color. The focal length also allows nice bokeh despite the f5.6 on the long end and it doesn't have that weird quality that I've seen on other lenses like the 35mm 1.8g.

It's only my third lens now, the third being the 85mm 1.8g and while it isn't as good as the prime it is much closer to that quality than the kit lens.

You won't be disappointed with the 70-300.

 

[psran]

Thanks to everyone for your help. I think 70-300 is clear winner here.

I will wait till I get a good deal on 70-300

 

[bc_steve]

Yep, 70-300 is the one to get