Lens comparison Nikkor 70-300 Vs. 55-300

ShutterWork

ShutterWork

Messages
865
Name
Anand
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I own a Nikon D5000 and kind of fed-up with my Tamron 70-300mm lens IQ at around 300 mark. It appears to be too soft. I am contemplating buying one of these lenses -

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED OR
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens

The second one seems to be a lot cheaper, not sure why though...Is it something to do with DX? Do the DX lenses have limited use or any drawbacks or lack of IQ? Will the DX lenses work on my D5000?

Thanks,
Anand
 
I thought the 70-300mm VR was a DX lens, but it seems it is not. :shrug: That may explain the difference in price, but I'm assuming there is a quality difference too. ;)

The pro lenses are normally better at the extremes of the zoom ranges. That said, I upgraded from a Sigma 70-300mm APO lens to the Nikon 70-300mm VR because it became a bit soft with the increased resolution, when I went from the D70 to the D200. I've been very happy with it though. :) All but the pro lenses are not as sharp at their extremes, be that zoom ranges or apertures, though the Nikon was better than the Sigma in my experience. How the Tamron 70-300mm compares to the Nikon and Sigma I don't know. Maybe owners of the Tamron and the Nikons can say whether it is a worthwhile upgrade. :shrug:

DX lenses are designed to work with DX cameras. The lenses project a smaller image circle of light to just cover the DX sensor size, allowing the lenses to be smaller, and in theory cheaper.

While DX lenses can be used on FX cameras, the images may be heavily vignetted because of the smaller projected image circle. Any Nikon compatible lens can be used on a DX camera (certain camera, and older lenses auto focus incompatibility problems aside). Again in theory you get the most out of a FX lenses on a DX body as only the central part of the projected image is seen by the sensor. Most lenses get softer towards the edges of the lens, so a DX body only 'seeing' the central part of the lens should get the most out of the FX lens.

Most faster (wider aperture) lenses are FX lenses, and so a lot more expensive than DX lenses. :( There are a few exceptions though.
 
The 55-300 is the replacement for the 55-200 VR and that was a great wee lens. It's also a much newer design than the 70-300 VR, not that that was a bad lens - Argos are doing it (the 70-300) in their Ebay store for £300 too, which is less than I paid for mine as a grey import about 3 years ago :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Sorry about this delayed reply guys..thanks for your answers..so as expected the cheaper price was attributed to DX lenses..

TBH I can go for a pro 70-300, but I thought if I had 55-300 it will be a succession for my 18-55 kit lens. But again do not want to go for a lens which is going to be softer at end ranges. So need to make up my mind. Thanks anyway.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The 55-300 is the replacement for the 55-200 VR and that was a great wee lens. It's also a much newer design than the 70-300 VR, not that that was a bad lens - Argos are doing it (the 70-300) in their Ebay store for £300 too, which is less than I paid for mine as a grey import about 3 years ago :thumbs:
Click to expand...

??? How on earth is the 55-300 a much newer design than the 70-300VR?

To the OP, try them out. I much preferred the 70-300VR on every aspect but perhaps with your body you prefer the 55-300 in handling.
 
IQ is very similar between the two, the 70-300 VR is better built (I think it has some sealing on the mount and a distance scale), has quicker AF and works on FX.

On the down side it uses 67mm filters whereas I think the 55-300 uses 52mm, the same as the kit lens.
 
The 70-300 is a far superior lens in terms of build quality...the 55-300 being the same 'kit lens' quality as the 55-200. The 70-300 is an FX lens which will still work beautifully on a DX camera but you are only using the centre parts of the elements.....the sweet spots!
Get the 70-300...you wont be sorry.

Neil
 
i have the 70-300 and it is simply my fav lens to use, love the weight, love the sharpness, love the VR just love it, heres a shot i took yesterday with the 70-300

Jade-Betts-35.jpg
 
I would go for the 70-300 if you can afford it as it's a star lens and is good value for the money.
 
Guess, we got more votes for 70-300...thanks everybody for the inputs..

@ Redhead - missed that..having said, I only arrived there around 3.ooish..

@ Daniel - Lovely portrait..any idea what the focal length was? If you don't mind would you mind posting somethings clicked at 300mm just to see how soft the images are, if any? Don't worry if you're not able to.

Just a related question as I am slowly building my kit now..if I go for 70-300mm now, what kind of lens range should I go on the lower end for shooting everyday photos and very occasional family events...24-85mm? will this be a good set along with my 70-300?

one more thing, is it worth using teleconvertors with the above 70-300?? Thanks.
 
Thanks Daniel..that's really nice and crisp at 300mm compared to my cheap Tamron :-)...thanks once again.

Would you ever use a TC on your 70-300?
 
DannyDMR said:
i would yes, don't have one but yeah can't see why not
Click to expand...

Right..thanks for that..it's only because I read somewhere in K Rockwell's website that a TC really works on quicker lenses e.g. f 2.8 sorts. So just wanted to check.
 
Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

one of nikons best lens you can only use third party tc on it for a reason.
i tried it and its pointless in the extreme
 
Have just bought one. Are the gorilla and the lad as shot or is there any post processing?

Phil
 
Both of them are cracking images..See the reason why 70-300 is better...any idea what the focal length were on these Rick and Kempraj? thanks.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Umm, because the 70-300 VR was launched in 2006 and the 55-300 VR in 2010, which, by my reckoning makes it 4 years newer ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed that it is 4 years newer. So how does that make it better? And for matter of fact newer design consider it has a totally different design brief compared to each other? Fx vs dx for a starter. The 55-300 is a variant on the 55-200, nothing to do with the 70-300 design.

My 105 f2.5 is nearly three decades old, yet at 105 is an even better lens ;)
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Agreed that it is 4 years newer. So how does that make it better?
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say it was better (I haven't shot with it so I couldn't comment on that), I said it was a newer design, you said it wasn't,now you appear to have changed your mind......:shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Nowhere did I say it was better (I haven't shot with it so I couldn't comment on that), I said it was a newer design, you said it wasn't,now you appear to have changed your mind......:shrug:
Click to expand...

So what was the point then??
 
ShutterWork said:
Just a related question as I am slowly building my kit now..if I go for 70-300mm now, what kind of lens range should I go on the lower end for shooting everyday photos and very occasional family events...24-85mm? will this be a good set along with my 70-300?
Click to expand...

For DX cameras, which I am more familiar with, lens ranges seem to go from;

10----------24mm
........16----------------------105mm
...........................55--------------------------300mm

There are different lenses within those ranges with different quality/price/zoom ranges. :shrug:

It depends how much you want to spend, and how big a lens you want to use. I started with a Nikon 18-70mm, but although that was a very good lens, I wanted something with a bit better quality, also something wider and maybe a bit longer would have been nice. ;) Fast f2.8 lens weren't appealing because of the focal ranges on a DX lens, also they are big lenses, and very expensive. I decided to go for the Nikon 16-85mm VR lens. :) It is wider than the lens I had (and that extra 2mm makes a big difference wide end ;)) and has a bit more zoom at 85mm. It overlaps nicely with the 70-300mm, and it is surprising how much that little bit more zoom makes me use the 70-300mm a lot less.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for a very detailed info Redhed. Much appreciated.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bornagain
Have just bought one. Are the gorilla and the lad as shot or is there any post processing?
Click to expand...
Phil

Lad as shot at 300mm, f/5.6 ISO 280, no post processing!
Click to expand...


Thanks for info - shows me what sort of result I might be able to get with mine one day! (I can but dream)

Phil
 
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have been searching for info on the 55-300 and 70-300 and this one came up and has lots of useful info.

I would also like to upgrade my Tamron 70-300 for similar reasons (poor IQ, slow autofocus etc) and would like to get one of these lenses. In perfect world, I would go for the 70-300 but am not sure my budget would stretch that far, am also worried about the weight of it on my puny little arms :lol:

Before I start the saving up, I just want to ask if the 55-300 (and 70-300) compatible with my trusty D50??
 
Yup - AF-S lenses have a built-in focus motor so will AF on the smaller Nikons. Beware AF-D - they'll be MF only.
 
Except that the good little d50 does have the AF motor :)

I'd just spend the little difference once and get the 70-300. It isn't that heavy especially when you have a strap like a black rapid.
 
Sorry, I always forget that. Damn Nikon and their obtuse product names.
 
dejongj said:
Except that the good little d50 does have the AF motor :)

I'd just spend the little difference once and get the 70-300. It isn't that heavy especially when you have a strap like a black rapid.
Click to expand...

:) This is what I am thinking too, I dont want to spend the money on the 55-300, and then be wishing I had held on longer for the 70-300.

Does the extra 15mm offer much more range?

Thanks also for the info re: AF and MF, this is what I was concerned about as I had heard that some AF lenses are not always compatable with all bodies
 
Floss said:
:) This is what I am thinking too, I dont want to spend the money on the 55-300, and then be wishing I had held on longer for the 70-300.

Does the extra 15mm offer much more range?

Thanks also for the info re: AF and MF, this is what I was concerned about as I had heard that some AF lenses are not always compatable with all bodies
Click to expand...

The only bodies that don't have a motor (and as such need a lens with a motor, such as the Nikon AF-S models) are the newer small ones, the D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D3100/D5000 and D5100
 
The extra 15mm probably isn't such a big deal - having a few mm gaps in your range isn't a disaster: you can just walk a few steps closer/further away!
 
I went through this decision process a month or two back and in the end went for the 55-300. The key things that swung it for me were price, weight and the 55 to 70 bit.

At the time the 55-300 was about £140 cheaper than the 70-300 although now it's probably more like £70 difference if Argos are still doing their eBay deals on the latter.

I've found that the extra width at 55mm is very useful as is the 200g weight saving over the 70-300. I suspect that optically they are very similar too judging by Nikon's explanation of the elements and the MTF graphs on their website. I'm certainly pleased with the results at 300mm.

I was prepared for poor autofocus performance based on the comments here but have not had any problems with the speed (or lack of) but then I don't shoot sports. Very occasionally the lens can get caught out if it's pointed at a low contrast subject and can hunt momentarily but it doesn't happen very often. I would assume that if sport is a key consideration then you'd be looking at faster glass than either of these lenses anyway.

The 70-300 might be easier to sell on and this might be a factor as long as you don't pay any more than £300 for it new!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top