1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. Simmy

    Simmy

    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Messages:
    257
    at the moment i have borrowed my mates 55-200mm VR lens,

    but hes going to want it back next month

    so really need to replace it

    on my old d50 i used a sigma 70-300mm but sold it as it did not autofocus well.

    there is a new 70-300mm Nikon Vr but its nearly £400

    how ever i have found that nikon also make a 55-300mm VR at around £200

    i have seen results of both lenses and i cant really tell much difference in image quality to justify the extra 200,

    or do i just go back to a 70-300mm none vr for £100
     
  2. Bristolian

    Bristolian

    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Messages:
    2,553
    The reason the 70-300VR is so much more expensive is that it is full frame whereas the 55-300 is DX.

    I bought my grandson the 55-300 recently (cos he's always using the 70-300!) and am impressed by the quality of the images he has produced on his D40.

    The non-VR version of the 70-300 is widely regarded as Nikon's worst zoom so I wouldn't recommend it.

    Hope that helps :)
     
  3. Simmy

    Simmy

    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Messages:
    257
    Cheers For your help mate

    when u say full frame? i might as well get the 55-300 becayse im on a d5100 which is not a full frame cam
     

Share This Page