anyone had a nikon 55-300mm and a 70-300mm

wooders · 5 Jan 2013

hi , my question is - has anyone owned or borrowed a nikon 55-300mm and also had a nikon 70-300mm lens at the same time ?
Im struggling to make my mind up .one minute i think i should go for the cheaper option but will i be sacrifing quality and to much focus speed going for the cheaper 55-300mm .Hopefully someone has had both and can share there experiences with the 2 lenses .
Will the 55-300 struggle on an overcast day with the focus speed ? I will pairing it with a 18-105mm (on a d5100)so not to worried about any overlap .
thanks.

rjbell · 5 Jan 2013

The 55-300 the same lens as the 55-200 with the extra reach. The 70-300 is better in everyway IQ, Build, AF speed, VR.

Al1944 · 5 Jan 2013

rjbell said:
The 55-300 the same lens as the 55-200 with the extra reach.

But it does have a metal mount which is an improvement over the 55-200.

Al

SThornton · 5 Jan 2013

I currently own the 55-300 (I haven't had or used a 70-300) but I love the lens. It's never failed me. Below are a few examples of when I had it paired with my D3100 (I've just upgraded to D7k)

Last Import-0 by SJThornton1987, on Flickr

Last Import-3 by SJThornton1987, on Flickr

Zebra by SJThornton1987, on Flickr

Dik-dik by SJThornton1987, on Flickr

Dale_tem · 5 Jan 2013

The 55-300mm is a great lens, the Lion, tiger and other animals early in my photo stream on Flickr were taken using the lens. Great lens, but now upgraded to a faster lens and a separate longer lens.

gad-westy · 5 Jan 2013

There are a few big differences to justify the 70-300's price tag. I suppose the first thing is the build quality of it which is very obvious when you have the two together. It's also a full frame lens, which may or may not matter to you but does explain some of the cost difference.

IQ wise I'm not sure that there is a huge amount in it but the 70-300 VR is a lot faster to focus though not necessarily more accurate or more able to find focus in falling light. Have a watch of this to see the difference in speed in terms of time from closest focus to infinity of the two (and others).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TcL0qYM2M

straycat · 5 Jan 2013

70-300's isnt expensive even for a Nikon

its one of Nikons true gems

danbroad · 5 Jan 2013

true, but the 55-300 is an excellent lens aswell. I have owned both but am perfectly happy with the long end of the 55-300 nowadays.

ManVan · 6 Jan 2013

wooders said:
hi , my question is - has anyone owned or borrowed a nikon 55-300mm and also had a nikon 70-300mm lens at the same time ?
Im struggling to make my mind up .one minute i think i should go for the cheaper option but will i be sacrifing quality and to much focus speed going for the cheaper 55-300mm .Hopefully someone has had both and can share there experiences with the 2 lenses .
Will the 55-300 struggle on an overcast day with the focus speed ? I will pairing it with a 18-105mm (on a d5100)so not to worried about any overlap .
thanks.

Ive had both and while the 55-300 is a cracking lens for the money I much prefer the 70-300. much quicker to focus, much sharper and the lens does not rotate when zooming. An important point for me when using polarising filters.