Nikon 55-300 vs 70-300

Daysleeper40

Daysleeper40

Messages
5,184
Name
Fi
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I have been threatening to get myself an AF-s Nikon 70-300 VR for about 18 months now and I have finally got to the point when I may actually buy the thing before the VAT increase drives up the SH prices... and then I come across the 55-300:

55-300

which is a bit cheaper and obviously covers a slightly wider range. If I got this then I would have no real need to keep the 55-200 that I already have.

Just wondering if anyone has any opinions - am I stillbetter off getting the 70-300? I'm assuming it is better quality and is always reviewed so well. Not sure what to do now :thinking:
 
Last edited:
I wondered the same after I had bought my 70-300VR, it seemed odd that Nikon had bought out a 55-300 at a new price which was not much more than the price of a used 70-300 VR. I guessed that something would have to suffer and from what I have read since it seems that generally the quality of the 55 lens is not as good. But having the greater zoom range, and the fact that it would probably been good enough for the type of photography I do, I shall always wonder if, had the 55 been available when I bought my 70-300 VR second hand, would I have bought the 55-300 new?
 
I would go for a 70-300VR, a much better build quality and IQ which also has the bonus of working on a FX camera if you ever get one. The 55-300 also has a rotating front element which I'd keep away from at all costs.
 
From the reviews I have read it seems the 55-300 is fairly similar to the 55-200 re quality. I've been perfectly happy with my 55-200 other than wanting more reach... but then I have nothing else to compare it to. My only other lens is the kit lens.
 
stumeech said:
I would go for a 70-300VR, a much better build quality and IQ which also has the bonus of working on a FX camera if you ever get one. The 55-300 also has a rotating front element which I'd keep away from at all costs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the opinion Stu - what is a rotating front element and why is it bad?
 
Best way I can think to compare it to something you may have is as follows:

If you go to take a shot with your kit lens (which I presume is the 18-55 with or without VR), watch the front of the lens as you focus. The front element will move left to right as you focus on particular subjects. Now if you were to screw a polarizer or ND filter on to the front of the lens, these would also move as you focus. So if you'd set them up correct alignment etc, you would then need to reset them before taking the shot. If you put the lens into manual focus, and then tried to realign your polarizer no doubt the front element would move again ruining your focus.

A lens with internal focussing (IF) will move the front element inside the lens casing independently of the bit where you have attached filter, polarizer, lens hood etc. Making life a hell of alot easier!

Hope this helps,

Stu.
 
stumeech said:
Best way I can think to compare it to something you may have is as follows:

If you go to take a shot with your kit lens (which I presume is the 18-55 with or without VR), watch the front of the lens as you focus. The front element will move left to right as you focus on particular subjects. Now if you were to screw a polarizer or ND filter on to the front of the lens, these would also move as you focus. So if you'd set them up correct alignment etc, you would then need to reset them before taking the shot. If you put the lens into manual focus, and then tried to realign your polarizer no doubt the front element would move again ruining your focus.

A lens with internal focussing (IF) will move the front element inside the lens casing independently of the bit where you have attached filter, polarizer, lens hood etc. Making life a hell of alot easier!

Hope this helps,

Stu.
Click to expand...

Ah I see... thankyou :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top