70-300 af-s vs 55-300 af-s

[florotory]

I'm sure this is a dumb question but, when it comes to the 2 lens what the difference? What makes one better than the other? The reason I as is I'm looking to buy a 300mm lens and just wanting to know the differences. Thanks
Nikon - AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens - Black - 2161 - Best Buy

Nikon - AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Telephoto Zoom Lens - 2197 - Best Buy

 

[IronMaskDuval]

This post will give you the answers.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon-lenses/345238-nikon-55-300-vr-vs-70-300-vr-amatuer.html

From what I know, the 70-300 focuses faster. I've had problems with my 55-300 not focusing fast enough, but it doesn't happen enough for me to justify getting rid of it for the 70-300. My next purchase on a telephoto would have to have a max aperture of 2.8. $$$$$

 

[florotory]

Great thanks

 

[PaulWog]

Neither is a good 300mm lens. The 70-300 is better in pretty much every way though... You'll notice sharpness as the first biggest thing.

If you want a 70-300, then the vr is great. If you want a 300 specifically, maybe look at spending more.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

The Nikkor 70-300mm will focus faster, focus better in more challenging lighting conditions, and produce images of slightly better quality. It is also an FX (full frame) lens so it is designed to also work on full frame DSLR cameras which have larger image sensors.

The Nikkor 55-300mm will focus slower, sometimes struggle in finding focus in challenging lighting conditions, and produce slightly worse quality images. This is also a dedicated DX (crop frame) lens si it is designed to solely work on crop frame cameras.

You will be much better off with the 70-300 Nikkor VR lens, it is worth the extra cost. This lens is regarded by many as one of the best value for the money. I have it myself and am very pleased with it.

 

[florotory]

Thank you for all the replies. I'm going to see the thunderbirds perform here in a couple weeks. I got so good pics last year but only had my d7100 for a few days and felt my 55-200 was lacking. So trying to find a good lens for the airshow and still be able to use it at other events

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Neither is a good 300mm lens. The 70-300 is better in pretty much every way though... You'll notice sharpness as the first biggest thing.

If you want a 70-300, then the vr is great. If you want a 300 specifically, maybe look at spending more.

I wouldn't discount them from being good. Yes, they're not great, and they are very limited, but for the price, they are definitely a good start.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Thank you for all the replies. I'm going to see the thunderbirds perform here in a couple weeks. I got so good pics last year but only had my d7100 for a few days and felt my 55-200 was lacking. So trying to find a good lens for the airshow and still be able to use it at other events

If you're shooting an air show, why not just rent a fast telephoto? Something like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM

 

[SCraig]

If you're shooting an air show, why not just rent a fast telephoto? Something like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM

Why bother? "Fast" means very little in this situation. He has a D7100, which has an excellent AF module, and he is in Florida in March shooting an outdoor air show. Odds are very, very good that there will be plenty of light so having f/2.8 available in that situation means very little.

People tend to over-emphasize the need for wide apertures on long lenses in my opinion. Fast lenses have their place certainly, but an air show in Florida in March probably isn't one of them. Generally speaking the only time having a f/2.8 lens is useful is in low-light conditions and this is unlikely to be a low-light condition. The rest of the time one is carrying around a lot of weight for no reason. I just looked at some of the shots I took at the last air show I went to, and they were mostly at f/8 on an overcast day. Having an f/2.8 lens on my camera that day would have accomplished nothing.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

If you're shooting an air show, why not just rent a fast telephoto? Something like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM

Why bother? "Fast" means very little in this situation. He has a D7100, which has an excellent AF module, and he is in Florida in March shooting an outdoor air show. Odds are very, very good that there will be plenty of light so having f/2.8 available in that situation means very little.

People tend to over-emphasize the need for wide apertures on long lenses in my opinion. Fast lenses have their place certainly, but an air show in Florida in March probably isn't one of them. Generally speaking the only time having a f/2.8 lens is useful is in low-light conditions and this is unlikely to be a low-light condition. The rest of the time one is carrying around a lot of weight for no reason. I just looked at some of the shots I took at the last air show I went to, and they were mostly at f/8 on an overcast day. Having an f/2.8 lens on my camera that day would have accomplished nothing.

Why bother? Because this thread was moving that way, I guess. I think the two original lenses that OP was debating are both adequate for the shooting conditions.

 

[SCraig]

Why bother? Because this thread was moving that way, I guess. I think the two original lenses that OP was debating are both adequate for the shooting conditions.

I do agree that the two original lenses are adequate. I have the 70-300 and it is my go-to lens for most situations. I haven't owned the 55-300 so I can't comment from personal experience, however everything I've read states that the 70-300 is a far better choice.

I apologize for the tone of my post however your comment kind of hit a sore spot. I see so many posts on here in which people recommend going with a hyper-fast lens. Then those who don't understand the limitations of such a wide aperture run out and buy one, try to shoot everything wide open, and then wonder why their photographs are out of focus. Fast lenses DO have their place, however a long, fast lens under clear blue sunlit skies accomplishes nothing more than a sore shoulder from hauling it around all day.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Why bother? Because this thread was moving that way, I guess. I think the two original lenses that OP was debating are both adequate for the shooting conditions.

I do agree that the two original lenses are adequate. I have the 70-300 and it is my go-to lens for most situations. I haven't owned the 55-300 so I can't comment from personal experience, however everything I've read states that the 70-300 is a far better choice.

I apologize for the tone of my post however your comment kind of hit a sore spot. I see so many posts on here in which people recommend going with a hyper-fast lens. Then those who don't understand the limitations of such a wide aperture run out and buy one, try to shoot everything wide open, and then wonder why their photographs are out of focus. Fast lenses DO have their place, however a long, fast lens under clear blue sunlit skies accomplishes nothing more than a sore shoulder from hauling it around all day.

No problem. Isn't that how all forums go? Get the biggest, baddest most expensive thing out there despite it not being the panacea for being a good professional at anything?

 

[SCraig]

No problem. Isn't that how all forums go? Get the biggest, baddest most expensive thing out there despite it not being the panacea for being a good professional at anything?

Actually, I think it's the way the world goes these days and not just forums

The problem is that in so many cases people that have no experience with photography find these posts and decide that "This is what I *MUST* have!" yet they don't have the experience to use it properly. Hauling a 300mm f/2.8 lens to an air show under bright blue skies, just as an example, is like hunting squirrels with a howitzer, yet I see posts every day where someone is recommending an f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens for landscapes. Great for landscapes at night, but not worth a hoot at any other time.

 

[bigal1000]

No problem. Isn't that how all forums go? Get the biggest, baddest most expensive thing out there despite it not being the panacea for being a good professional at anything?

Actually, I think it's the way the world goes these days and not just forums

The problem is that in so many cases people that have no experience with photography find these posts and decide that "This is what I *MUST* have!" yet they don't have the experience to use it properly. Hauling a 300mm f/2.8 lens to an air show under bright blue skies, just as an example, is like hunting squirrels with a howitzer, yet I see posts every day where someone is recommending an f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens for landscapes. Great for landscapes at night, but not worth a hoot at any other time.

"If they read it on the internet it must be true" can't these people think for themselves?

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm sure this is a dumb question but, when it comes to the 2 lens what the difference? What makes one better than the other? The reason I as is I'm looking to buy a 300mm lens and just wanting to know the differences. Thanks
Nikon - AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens - Black - 2161 - Best Buy

Nikon - AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Telephoto Zoom Lens - 2197 - Best Buy

A couple of quick thoughts here. The 70-300 mm af-s vr version of this lens runs around 300 used and it is a fantastic lens. Check adorama, keh or bh photo websites for prices and availability. You'll be better of with one of them if you can order online.

A 70-200 mm 2.8 is a great lens but they are expensive and heavy. I wouldn't consider going that route unless you need the 2.8 for other shooting situations and you were also planning on using a teleconverter.

The only real advantage a 2.8 would have in that situation would be if you added a 2x teleconverter you'd have a 140-400mm at f/5.6.

Even so a 70-200mm is a lot bigger and heavier than the 70-300mm vr so I really wouldn't recommend it for that particular situation.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk