DX 70-300 compared to DX 55-300

[fotkar]

I am buying a tele lens and I cannot choose between
Nikon JAA829DA P DX Nikkor 70-300 mm 1: 4.5 – 6,3g Ed Vr
and
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300 mm 1:4,5-5,6G ED VR

The later is 1/3 cheaper.

I will also take a D7500 with 18-140 kit.

What is the difference between the 300 lenses? WHich one I should take?

 

[jaomul]

The newer 70-300 is supposed to be the better performance lens. By all accounts the 55-300 is a nice imager but very slow to focus

 

[fmw]

The smaller the zoom range, the better the image quality, all other things being equal.

 

[Braineack]

The newer 70-300 is supposed to be the better performance lens. By all accounts the 55-300 is a nice imager but very slow to focus

Emphasis on very.

 

[fotkar]

tnx. I just went ahead and bought:
D7500 with kit 18-140
dx 35mm f/1,8
Nikon DX Nikkor 70-300 mm 1: 4.5 – 6,3g Ed Vr

Now I think I am well setup for my new photo adventures!

 

[jaomul]

Very well set up. Enjoy

 

[nerwin]

Great setup, you'll love it! The D7500 is a solid performer. You won't have to upgrade for a long time.

 

[fotkar]

I received the gear and I am playing a bit for the last day or two.

Amazing camera!

I just have one slight issue with 70-300. I was not testing it a lot but I have a feeling that the smallest focal length 70mm is a bit too much. I have a feeling that I would be better off with 55-300 as I have a feeling this difference of 15mm at the bottom end is making a huge difference.

Can you comfort me that in situation where I will be using this lens this difference will not be so important?
Or should I contemplate sending it back and getting 55-300?

 

[Braineack]

might as well go buy that 18-400mm and get rid of all your other lenses.

use your 18-140 if you need less than 70mm.

the 55-300 is a pretty junk lens.

 

[astroNikon]

I received the gear and I am playing a bit for the last day or two.

Amazing camera!

I just have one slight issue with 70-300. I was not testing it a lot but I have a feeling that the smallest focal length 70mm is a bit too much. I have a feeling that I would be better off with 55-300 as I have a feeling this difference of 15mm at the bottom end is making a huge difference.

Can you comfort me that in situation where I will be using this lens this difference will not be so important?
Or should I contemplate sending it back and getting 55-300?

Truthfully I find the 70-300, the 70 to be too much on a DX camera too if the subjects are too close. I use a 70-300 on my FX camera for the short end and long end. On a DX the short end is more 105ish FOV which is restrictive. In that regards the 55-300 is better. But the 55-300 lens falls short in many areas compared to the 70-300 especially the newer 70-300 AF-P lenses.

But you have a 18-140. For more close up subjects consider using that lens instead.

Some people migrate towards quality glass (multiple lenses) while others towards one-all convenience. For instance there is a 18-300 DX & 28-300 FX too which are great for convenience. There's also a Tamron 18-400. but as mentioned the 55-300 is a poor quality lens all around.

You'll have to figure out which end of the spectrum you prefer.

 

[nerwin]

When I was shooting crop, I never noticed the difference between 55mm and 70mm when I upgraded from the 55-200 VR to the 70-300 VR, it's not THAT much of a difference. Just take a step back if you need to. It wasn't a big deal. I just can't see missing 15mm causes you miss so many shots.

If it is, then perhaps you should look into getting an all in one zoom, like the 18-400 Tamron, or the 18-140 Nikon kit or something of the like.

Like @astroNikon said, you have to figure out which end of the spectrum you prefer.

Personally, I like the restrictions because it makes me think more and forces me to use what I have and be creative.

Just my two cents. You can't have it all. There is no 10mm-1000mm f/0.95 VR VIII that fits in your pocket and weighs less than your phone.

 

[Derrel]

The smaller the zoom range, the better the image quality, all other things being equal.

I must disagree with this; to a HUGE extent, what determines zoom lens quality is NOT the zoom range--it is the initial retail price point AND the generation of the lens. The above quoted statement and its reference to zoom range being the key quality determinant is outdated thinking, and ignores the simple fact that _modern_ zoom lenses, ones that are designed to be used on high-resolution digital SLR's these days, can be extremely good performers, and the HIGHER the initial retail price, and the more quality emphasis the maker put into the lens, the better the lens will perform--even with a wide zoom range.

A low-end lens like an 18-55 kit zoom, one that retails for $99 as part of a kit is quite often only average at f/4.5 to f/5.6, which is near wide-open, or totally wide-open...yet a $999 to $1,500 zoom with a 5x focal length ratio can easily better a $99 lens. Same thing with _MODERN_ high-dollar lenses like the 28-300 from Nikon: QUITE a good lens...or the 200-500 Nikkor zoom...or the NEW 80-400 AF-S. All these are good lenses; the new 80-300 VASTLY outperformes the old one ( the one I made thousands of great pictures with back in the 4- to 10 megapixel era) because it is 1)much newer than the earlier 80-400 and 2)It was DESIGNED and priced to be a good zoom.

The old-days advice of "high zoom ratio = "crap lens" is not valid, as far as it goes. One must take into consderation the quality and price point that the maker designed the lens to be built for! As well as the design ERA...old-time lenses with regular glass, no aspherical elements, NO nano-crystal coating, etc,etc,no VR, and low price are often not all that hot on today's digital cameras..

Here is a GEAT example of an on-line review that shows the 28-300mm Nikkor VR zoom is a FINE lens...Nikon 28-300mm VR Review

Why? Because of everything I mentioned above; NEW-era design...HIGH priced, multiple ED glass elements, multiple aspherical elements...built to be GOOD, for NEW-era digital capture.

 

[Derrel]

I am buying a tele lens and I cannot choose between
Nikon JAA829DA P DX Nikkor 70-300 mm 1: 4.5 – 6,3g Ed Vr
and
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300 mm 1:4,5-5,6G ED VR

The later is 1/3 cheaper.

I will also take a D7500 with 18-140 kit.

What is the difference between the 300 lenses? WHich one I should take?

READ the Thom Hogan Nikon D3400 review and pay attention to the sterling qualities of the 70-300 AF-P VR lens...it is __the best__ 70-300 Nikon has ever made, according to Hogan. With focusing he compared to the "big Nikkors"...the expensive ones!

 

[fmw]

Darrell, you must have missed the "all other things being equal" part of the post. Since when was price the determining factor in lens performance? Answer=never. When was generation a determining factor in lens performance. Answer=never. The determining factors are design and quality of manufacture. All things being equal, the more modest range lens will outperform the longer range one. Why? The modest lens requires less correction. Comparing apples to oranges is not an adequate attack on my post. Sorry.

 

[fmw]

READ the Thom Hogan Nikon D3400 review and pay attention to the sterling qualities of the 70-300 AF-P VR lens...it is __the best__ 70-300 Nikon has ever made, according to Hogan. With focusing he compared to the "big Nikkors"...the expensive ones!

I'm not sure that is a glowing report. The 70-300 Nikkors have been pretty bad historically. I can tell you that without quoting an internet reviewer. This one must be less bad. The 70-200, for example is excellent. I'm not making a comparison because it is apples to oranges but there has to be some sort of concept of what "best" means.