55-300mm VR or 70-300mm VR

Stumbles87 · Jan 9, 2012

Hi All!

Im seriously struggling to make the decision between the 55-300mm VR and 70-300mm VR. I have read thousands of reviews and some say the 70-300mm is worth the extra money and other say it isnt! Ive also heard it has a faster auto focus for sport which is what im wanting it for. Im pulling my hair out!!

Any suggestions?

TIA

Destin · Jan 9, 2012

Used Nikon 80-200 2.8 push pull

Or a used sigma 70-200 2.8.

Key for sports is a fast shutter speed. Which requires a fast aperture. Those lenses are both f5.6 or maybe even 6.3 at the long end which will SEVERELY impair auto focusing abilities on fast moving subjects.

Destin · Jan 9, 2012

What camera do you have?

EchoingWhisper · Jan 9, 2012

If you can't afford what Destin stated, go for the 70-300mm. I regretted buying my 55-200mm. 55-300mm is better than 55-200mm in all ways. That's off topic, now talk about 70-300mm and 55-300mm, they have about the same optics. The 55-300mm is a bit smaller and lighter and have the benefit of the focal length 55-70, depends if you need it or not. I suppose the 70-300mm has better build quality, and M/A focusing is important plus the distance scale.

Stumbles87 · Jan 9, 2012

I use a Nikon D3000. I already have the 55-200mm which I love so only intended to get the 55-300mm for more length but then I noticed the 70-300mm. The 80-200 2.8 is definately not an option. They are way out of my price range. Im more of a protrait photographer but wanted a decent lens for when I did sports (mainly equestrian and motor sports).

Destin · Jan 9, 2012

Both lenses that I mentioned in my original post on this thread can be had for $400 on Ebay pretty reliably. Since your camera doesn't have a built in AF motor, you'd have to go with the sigma 70-200 in order to get autofocus.

If you insist on one of the lenses you stated, the 70-300 is by far the better choice. I believe that you'll find it to have unreliable autofocus at 300mm though, because it simply doesn't let enough light in.

I've got a few questions for you that will help me give more detailed advice though:

1.) What sports are you shooting, and at what level/age range?

2.) Are they day or night? Indoor or out?

3.) Where are you shooting from? The stands? Sidelines? 200mm should be plenty long for most lower level (high school and below) sports, because you can get so close to the field without needing a press pass.

4.) Why are you taking the sports photos? Just for fun? To make money? Does your little brother play?

I run a business selling sports photos from high school and community sporting events. I've NEVER owned a lens longer than 200mm, and there have been very, very few times when I've wanted more reach. I started with the Nikon 55-200. Hated it. Didn't let enough light in unless it was a BRIGHT, sunny day. Didn't focus fast enough. Wasn't very sharp. I was never wishing it was longer though, other than trying to shoot outfielders in baseball. But those are generally boring photos anyway.

So I decided I needed a new lens to shoot sports. Looked into the 70-300 VR. Borrowed it from a friend of mine to shoot a baseball game. It gave me the same issues as the 55-200, although it was slightly sharper and faster focusing, it still wasn't good enough. So I came here and asked what to do. I was told to get a Sigma 70-200 2.8. A few months of saving later and I had it in my hands. That was almost 2 years ago and I haven't looked back since. You just don't understand how terribly slow f5.6 lenses are until you shoot with a good, sharp 2.8 telephoto and see the difference it makes.

-- That was just my experience though. Depending on the answers to the questions I asked, you may not need the lenses I've mentioned. You may not even need to buy a new lens. You may be able to get by with the 55-200 once you figure out the proper places to shoot from for different sports.

Stumbles87 · Jan 9, 2012

1.) What sports are you shooting, and at what level/age range? Adult sport and also young kids aged approx 3 years old. The adults horse riding, horse racing, motorbikes and for the kids just kicking around balls and things. 2.) Are they day or night? Indoor or out? Some night time but mostly outdoors. 3.) Where are you shooting from? The stands? Sidelines? 200mm should be plenty long for most lower level (high school and below) sports, because you can get so close to the field without needing a press pass. The sidelines and possibly a little further away with the motorbikes and horses. 4.) Why are you taking the sports photos? Just for fun? To make money? Does your little brother play? To make money and for my kids photos.

Stumbles87 · Jan 10, 2012

SCraig · Jan 10, 2012

Destin said:
Key for sports is a fast shutter speed. Which requires a fast aperture. Those lenses are both f5.6 or maybe even 6.3 at the long end which will SEVERELY impair auto focusing abilities on fast moving subjects.

Let's see ... I've used my 70-300 at motorcycle road races, stock car races, top fuel drag races, air shows when F-18's and F-15's flew. I've used it on birds, people, wildlife, geese in flight, ducks in flight, gulls in flight, pigeons in flight, R/C Airplanes in flight. There are probably a few more but that should prove the point. I've never felt hindered by the autofocus once. There has been one time that I did wish it was a bit faster, but I was shooting an F-15 taking off while it was raining so it was a bit dim. I usually shoot at ISO 400 and never above 800 except at night.

I like my 70-300 and if anything ever happens to it I'll buy another one just exactly like it.

rgregory1965 · Jan 10, 2012

I use the 55-300 and have got some extremly sharp photos of birds on flight......ect

keep in mind that not every shot will be perfect....Im averaging 1-20 that turn out really good when shooting moving objects....

EchoingWhisper · Jan 11, 2012

SCraig said:
Destin said:

Key for sports is a fast shutter speed. Which requires a fast aperture. Those lenses are both f5.6 or maybe even 6.3 at the long end which will SEVERELY impair auto focusing abilities on fast moving subjects.

Click to expand...

Let's see ... I've used my 70-300 at motorcycle road races, stock car races, top fuel drag races, air shows when F-18's and F-15's flew. I've used it on birds, people, wildlife, geese in flight, ducks in flight, gulls in flight, pigeons in flight, R/C Airplanes in flight. There are probably a few more but that should prove the point. I've never felt hindered by the autofocus once. There has been one time that I did wish it was a bit faster, but I was shooting an F-15 taking off while it was raining so it was a bit dim. I usually shoot at ISO 400 and never above 800 except at night.

I like my 70-300 and if anything ever happens to it I'll buy another one just exactly like it.

That is opposite for me, at slowest shuter speed without hand shake and maximum aperture, I barely shoot below ISO 3200.

Derrel · Jan 11, 2012

Either lens ought to be at least "passable"...I mean, they are of roughly the same vintage, both are AF-S, both are slightly higher-end consumer lenses. I have the 70-300 VR...it is surprisingly good for a lens of its price; it is DECIDEDLY a cut above the 55-200 VR...ehh...I shot the 55-200VR in Hawaii a couple years back....ehhh...the 55-200VR is/was truly "consumer" even on the D40...the 70-300 VR has begun the process of being discounted rather heftily the past six months or so. I bought my copy for $275 in a pawn shop, MINT, with caps and case, last spring.In daylight, the 70-300VR on the D2x has lighting quick focusing. Truly first-rate, but I am sure that it would focus more poorly in LOW_light type scenarios....I mean, it's only an f/5.6 at the long end...

The fact that the 70-300 has had some rebates/discounts on it for over 6 months now means there are a LOT of them out there on the used market, and those who bought them "recently", as opposed to when it first came out, payed a LOT LESS than when the lens was "new" and "hot".