How good is the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX

[jamesparker1250]

I see people post all the time about the 70- 300mm lens and how good it is. But how good is the Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX lens.

 

[KmH]

The 1st major difference is the 70-300 is an FX lens while the 55-300 is a DX lens.
Hence the significant difference in cost because DX lenses use smaller lens elements and the glass is a major part of the cost of making a lens.

While the 55-300 performs better than the 55-200 it doesn't out perform the 70-300 VR.
The 55-300 has pretty strong pin cushion distortion in the range of about 135 mm to 200 mm.

 

[Braineack]

I've had the 55-300 and own the 70-300.

Optically the differences I think are trivial between the two for most people, but it is softer.

The pros of the 55-300: cheaper, smaller/lighter, close focusing.
The pros of the 70-300: FX, manual focus override, focusing ring close body (instead of at end), focusing doesn't rotate filter ring, focusing speed, sharper at 300mm.

The cons of the 55-300: slow/clumsy autofocus
The cons of the 70-300: more expensive, larger/heavier, min focusing distance.

 

[jamesparker1250]

So is it a good lens overall

 

[Braineack]

it's a decent lens, but everything is a compromise in what youre willing to give up for the cost really.

 

[jamesparker1250]

But me a po folk just try to get a good pictures of the family

 

[bigal1000]

So is it a good lens overall

It's an ok lens for po folks it's pretty cheap and you will get what you pay for ..........

 

[DrHarmony]

I own the 55-300 and like others have said, you get what you pay for.
Having three teenagers makes me po folk as well, but I wish I went for the 70 300 as I am selling my 55-300 to do just that.

 

[Braineack]

So is it a good lens overall

It's an ok lens for po folks it's pretty cheap and you will get what you pay for ..........

It's not THAT cheap, and it's not THAT bad. Beats having the 55-200 VR.

I took this using the 55-300, it's pretty bad. Got what I paid for:


Panning A.W.E.S.O.M.-O. Miata by The Braineack, on Flickr

 

[sifelaver]

I've had the 55-300 and own the 70-300.

Optically the differences I think are trivial between the two for most people, but it is softer.

The pros of the 55-300: cheaper, smaller/lighter, close focusing.
The pros of the 70-300: FX, manual focus override, focusing ring close body (instead of at end), focusing doesn't rotate filter ring, focusing speed, sharper at 300mm.

The cons of the 55-300: slow/clumsy autofocus
The cons of the 70-300: more expensive, larger/heavier, min focusing distance.

+1

if i were buying today, i would (probably) look for a used 70-300 VR. however, i don't regret my decision to pick up a used 55-300 VR a few years ago. i think it ran around $250.

i rarely need to shoot longer than 150mm, which i have covered with the sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS. when i do it is never serious action; at most someone speaking from a distance in good light. if light is bad and i can get closer i'll use a flash if i can and the 50-150.

i know some people are going to laugh at this, but the lighter weight and compactness of the 55-300 VR is attractive to me, as compared to the 70-300 VR. i know it's not a huge difference, but when carrying around a few other lenses and sometimes a second body, every ounce counts. since i don't usually need the reach it's nice to travel lighter.

i'm happy enough with the IQ of the 55-300 VR. but if you find a good deal on a 70-300 VR i would say go for it. you will have a better performing, better IQ lens that will work on FX if you ever upgrade.

here's billy penn atop city hall in philadelphia i shot with the 55-300. very slightly cropped. i took this from around 13th and race if i recall correctly.

 

[MystrE]

I ordered a Nikon 55-300VR at the same time I bought my Nikon D5100 from Amazon last holiday season. I find the 55-300VR to be very adequate for my needs and budget. Yes, it hunts during focusing on moving objects but I'm learning to deal with that. I'm even using it on rare occasions to take close up photos just for grins and giggles. Here is an example of a carpenter bee I managed to capture in flight...

 

[MystrE]

And for grins and giggles, using the 55-300VR, I shot this photo of my first rose that bloomed this spring...

 

[TJC]

The 55 300VR gets decent reviews. In bright light conditions friends who use it ( i don't own the lens myself) love the lens. Looking at the shot of the Mazda above, how much better would a more expensive lens do under the same lighting conditions? if there is something wrong the shot, or for that matter any shot we take, how much is the lens and how much is us? Everything from changing the shutter speed or ap to just having a more steady hand.

I tend to blame myself rather than equipment when something doesn't turn out the way i want. And, i remind myself not to be too tough on myself. This is supposed to be fun. Personally, I like the pic of the Mazda. I'm not looking for correct exposure, or pin cushion effect, or leveling or softness I'm looking at the art of that pic. And that, IMO, is where that pic shines. The owner of that pic has to ask themselves - if i used a 70-200 2.8 at six times the cost, would the pic be 600% better? Gotta feeling that answer is gonna be no.

And Willie Penn is lookin pretty good there too!

 

[TJC]

Also as stated above the major difference between the 55-300 and the 70-300 is the 70-300 being a full frame lens. For some, just to have that flexibility is worth the extra cost. Count me among them. I use the 70-300 coupled to a D7000. I make no claims to photographic perfection. But, I'm happy! My money, my time, my happiness - win win win!

 

[robbins.photo]

The 55 300VR gets decent reviews. In bright light conditions friends who use it ( i don't own the lens myself) love the lens. Looking at the shot of the Mazda above, how much better would a more expensive lens do under the same lighting conditions? if there is something wrong the shot, or for that matter any shot we take, how much is the lens and how much is us? Everything from changing the shutter speed or ap to just having a more steady hand.

I tend to blame myself rather than equipment when something doesn't turn out the way i want. And, i remind myself not to be too tough on myself. This is supposed to be fun. Personally, I like the pic of the Mazda. I'm not looking for correct exposure, or pin cushion effect, or leveling or softness I'm looking at the art of that pic. And that, IMO, is where that pic shines. The owner of that pic has to ask themselves - if i used a 70-200 2.8 at six times the cost, would the pic be 600% better? Gotta feeling that answer is gonna be no.

And Willie Penn is lookin pretty good there too!

Well I do use a 70-200 mm 2.8, and it's not about images shot in good lighting conditions that any lens can handle with relative ease. Shooting in a dimly lit gym, yes my pictures are going to be 600 times better if not more, because I won't have to be trying to work with iso numbers that are so high they make your nose bleed and shutter speeds that are so slow that every shot is a blurred mess.

Fast glass has another huge advantage you also may not have considered. If you try adding a 2x teleconverter to a 55-300 or 70-300 odds are good even in bright daylight neither lens will be able to autofocus at all, and certainly not reliably.

I can throw a 2x on my 70-200 and now I have a 140-400 at f/5.6

Yes the fast glass is more expensive. It's bigger and heavier. But believe me, for some of us it's well worth the expense and the extra weight.

Sure if you shoot in good lighting conditions all the time you might not need that much lens. But not all of us only shoot outdoors on nice sunny days.

Just a little food for thought.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk