Thoughts on lens

[Eyetattoo]

Looking at buying a Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Auto Focus-S DX lens for taking pictures of our son playing football from the stands. On Amazon I can get it for $260, is it worth it or is there a better option available? Thanks.

 

[robbins.photo]

Looking at buying a Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Auto Focus-S DX lense for taking pictures of our son playing football from the stands. On Amazon I can get it for $260, is it worth it or is there a better option available? Thanks.

Ok, so you'll be in the stands. Day games or Night games? For games during the day it would work fine, though really I think you might be happier in the long run looking at a 70-300 mm Nikkor VR instead. They are a little more expensive but they are an amazingly sharp lens.

If your shooting night games - well unless your using a full frame camera you probably won't be all that happy with the results. The lighting at most night games is.. in a word, horrific especially when your trying to shoot from the stands. Unfortunately what you would really need there is something much faster in the glass department, and fast telephoto is not cheap.

 

[Eyetattoo]

It will be all day games (12:30pm) as it is youth football and it will be on my D3000.

 

[robbins.photo]

It will be all day games (12:30pm) as it is youth football and it will be on my D3000.

Then you should be just fine. I do recommend you take a look at the 70-300 mm Nikkor VR, they used to run around $300 or so used, $350 I think new.. but they are really outstanding telephoto lenses - I had one for a while and the picture quality was first rate and I never had any issue with the focusing speed, it always nailed the focus in no time at all. I only parted with mine because I started using a 70-200 F2.8 and after that the 300 didn't see much of any use.

 

[Eyetattoo]

So the 70-300mm has faster focusing speed? Any other advantages?

 

[robbins.photo]

So the 70-300mm has faster focusing speed? Any other advantages?

Well speaking only from reviews I've read of the 55-300 mm but the 70-300 mm has better image quality. It doesn't sound like the difference in IQ is huge, but it is apparently noticeable. Most of the comments I've read on the 55-300 is that it does seem sluggish to focus by comparison, which might not be ideal for sports shooting.

 

[jaomul]

Just to throw in the mix also is the Tamron 70-300mm USD vc. Many prefer this to either Nikon, but the comparison between this tamron and the Nikon 70-300 are so close one could say there as good as each other, but the tamron is much cheaper and usually has a better warranty

 

[jaomul]

Just to throw in the mix also is the Tamron 70-300mm USD vc. Many prefer this to either Nikon, but the comparison between this tamron and the Nikon 70-300 are so close one could say there as good as each other, but the tamron is much cheaper and usually has a better warranty

 

[robbins.photo]

Just to throw in the mix also is the Tamron 70-300mm USD vc. Many prefer this to either Nikon, but the comparison between this tamron and the Nikon 70-300 are so close one could say there as good as each other, but the tamron is much cheaper and usually has a better warranty

The tamron is a good option, the build quality isn't quite as good as the Nikon but it is less expensive if budget is a big concern.

But the lens focuses fast and gives good, sharp images.

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk

 

[jaomul]

I'll be honest robbins.photo i've had the tamron in Canon and Nikon guise, and I personally think it feels most solid of the 3 between canon, nikon or tamron. My only reason for not recommending it as a definite purchase is sometimes third party lenses lose functionality as dslr generations progress, so while the nikon in my opinion is not better, it may be a better investment because of this

 

[robbins.photo]

I'll be honest robbins.photo i've had the tamron in Canon and Nikon guise, and I personally think it feels most solid of the 3 between canon, nikon or tamron. My only reason for not recommending it as a definite purchase is sometimes third party lenses lose functionality as dslr generations progress, so while the nikon in my opinion is not better, it may be a better investment because of this

Hmm.. interesting. I've owned both the Nikkor and the tamron as well, and while I do like the tamron my Nikkor seemed more solid, focus ring on the tamron always did feel "loose" by comparison.

It's still a very capable lens though, definitely worth the ops consideration.

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk

 

[jaomul]

Sometimes there's variation, the tamrons I got were solid enough (both bought new though), the nikon 70-300 I used to be fair was in good but used condition. Either choice in this price range is good. I shouldn't of sold mine but I got a brain fart to go all m4/3 before reversing my decision after very little birding hits with an EM1 and 40-150 f2.8

 

[robbins.photo]

Sometimes there's variation, the tamrons I got were solid enough (both bought new though), the nikon 70-300 I used to be fair was in good but used condition. Either choice in this price range is good. I shouldn't of sold mine but I got a brain fart to go all m4/3 before reversing my decision after very little birding hits with an EM1 and 40-150 f2.8

Lol, I hear you there. I had the Nikkor, sold it after getting the 70 200 f2.8 then after the accident realized that it sure would be nice to have a lighter telephoto when I didn't need the faster glass and got the tamron.

Been happy with the tamron all in all, shoots great. But the lens does creep on occasion and the focus ring isn't quite as snappy. Still considering what I paid for it no complaints.

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk

 

[Eyetattoo]

How does the Nikon 55-300 focus compared to the stock Nikon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6G VR?