Which zoom? (Nikon AF-S)

Llamaman

Llamaman

Proud Addick
Messages
7,422
Name
Not an addick!
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

A few months ago I got a Nikon D5000 and the 18-105 VR lens (also a 35mm which I love :thumbs:).

I'd like to add a zoom lens to my collection as the 18-105 is great as a walkabout lens but there's been occassions when I'd have liked a bit more reach. But not so many that I want to spend an arm and a leg on it...

I've had a bit of a look already and within my price range I think my options are;

Nikon 55-300 f4.5-5.6 ED VR £293
Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IF-ED VR £399
Tamron SP70-300 f4-5.6 Di VC USD £364
Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 DC OS £429
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DG OS £319

(prices from a well-known high-street shop - probably not the cheapest but useful to compare).

The Sigma 18-250 seems a bit wasteful as I already have 18-105 covered and I suspect my current lens is better over that range.

Does the 55-300 compare well to the 70-300? I'm unlikely to go to fullframe anytime soon so the DX format isn't an issue. It's just as fast so saving £100 seems like a no-brainer.

The Sigma 70-300 is also a bit cheaper and faster (at the wide end) than the Nikon - I assume this is at the expense of optical or build quality?

Oh, and VC is a must as I probably won't have a tripod with me a lot of the time. :bonk:

Ho hum... looks like this hobby will be expensive... :suspect:
 
Oh, and VC is a must as I probably won't have a tripod with me a lot of the time.
You can use any of those without a tripod and not switching on the VC/VR. In fact for many types of shot you will find it of no help at all.

Really comes into it's own for low light stationary shots or horizontal panning.

It also cuts battery life and slows the AF. So if using a high shutter speed turn it off.

Only one of those I have used is the Nikon 70-300 VR.

Examples

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=70848
 
Last edited:
Out of your list I would say Nikon 70-300 VR. The 55-300VR is a new lens, but it is supposed to be pretty good as well, but I doubt if it will match the 70-300VR for IQ, and build quality is probably also not as good.

Keep an eye out for a second hand Nikon 70-300VR, they come up in the classifieds here fairly regularly for less than £300.
 
Should the 55-300 be 200? That seems cheap for a lenses with a 300mm zoom. I have the 55-200VR and it's great, use it for all my zoo visits. Can't comment on the others though.

Edit - Just looked up the 55-300, I didn't realise this has come out. Considering it's cheaper than a used 70-300, which is what I have been thinking of getting when funds allow I'm very tempted.
 
Last edited:
Exactly - although when something appears too good to be true...

The 2nd hand price of 70-300s doesn't appear to have dropped, which suggests that the 55-300 perhaps isn't the 70-300 killer that it appears to be from specs alone.
 
Nikkor 70-300mm VR - a solid lens with decent IQ :thumbs:

You can pick mint ones up for around the £270 mark...
 
Another vote for the 70-300 VR, very nice lens which complements the range of the 18-105mm nicely (I have both).
 
I'm assuming not many people have the 55-300 lens yet, hence the 70-300 is more popular? Are there any photos from the former on here though as a search didn't bring much up.
 
Pretty sure the 55-300 has the same build quality as the 18-55 and the 55-200.....ie very plasticky indeed and it comes with the plastic lens mount I believe. Nonetheless its supposed to be pretty decent IQ wise...there are some pics on a thread somewhere in this forum that looked pretty good to me. Personally, I'll stick with the 70-300VR!

Neil
 
Pretty sure the 55-300 has the same build quality as the 18-55 and the 55-200.....ie very plasticky indeed and it comes with the plastic lens mount I believe. Nonetheless its supposed to be pretty decent IQ wise...there are some pics on a thread somewhere in this forum that looked pretty good to me. Personally, I'll stick with the 70-300VR!
Found the thread with some nice pics! http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=283275&highlight=nikon+55-300
Neil
 
Last edited:
Thanks Neil, they look pretty good - £250 here and that's from a UK shop so has 12 months warranty.
 
Last edited:
I picked up a new Nikkor 70-300 vr11 @ £322 last week. It is selling from the same store this week for £399 (post budget increase?). I'm glad I got in on time as I usually miss out on these things.
 
What the 70-300 offers over the 55-300 is Full Frame coverage and much faster autofocussing, the 55-300 AF isn't really quick enough to track moving subjects.

edit: also, the 70-300 uses the same size filters as the 18-105, the 55-300 uses a somewhat weird 58mm which doesn't match their other cheaper lenses.

This is why I have two "budget" lens kits:

D60 + 18-55 + 55-200, small, very light and can be carried pretty much anywhen. Both lenses use 52mm filters
D90 + 18-105 + 70-300, bigger, better but heavier, you really need a bag. Both lenses use 67mm filters.
 
Last edited:
I have the exact setup as you with the 18-105mm and 35mm. Ended up getting the 55-200mm as the 55-300mm was over my budget. In retrospect though, I should have saved up for the 55-300mm or 70-300mm seeing as the 18-105mm and 55-200mm overlap quite a bit, and simply because moon shots are much better with the 300mm reach.

Between the 70-300mm and 55-300mm, take the 70-300mm if you don't mind the weight and size. Apparently it focuses much faster too.
 
Cheers. Looks like I'd better start saving those pennies and looking out for a good 2nd hand deal on a 70-300.
 
You may also like to look for Nikon 18-200mm VR and the old version you can get it for around £280 and you don't have to carry two lenses with the best IQ.
Has been recommended by Uncle Ken plenty of times as the best all rounder
 
Hmm, I might consider that. I can probably get £100 for my 18-105 VR, so it'd only be £180 more to get a 2nd-hand 18-200 VR. Doubling my reach for under £200 and only an extra 145g in weight? Tempting...

Sadly, a new 18-200 VRII is £550, and I'm not willing to spend £450 to get an extra 95mm and a slightly better VR.
 
I used to have a 'super-zoom', and whist it wasnt a Nikon (Tamron 18-270), from what I have read on here and from experience with said lens, stick with the original idea of getting a 'regular' zoom to compliment what you already have. Many find the superzooms to be a jack-of-all-trades and whilst they are perfectly capable of taking very good shots, simply by the nature of their construction, a zoom with a lower focal distance range will always be better. I learnt the hard (expensive) way with mine and wouldnt now consider a superzoom in the future. The other point is that for the most part, you wont be using the longer focal lengths anyway, so having two lenses isnt really much of an inconvenience.

Neil
 
Llamaman said:
Hmm, I might consider that. I can probably get £100 for my 18-105 VR, so it'd only be £180 more to get a 2nd-hand 18-200 VR. Doubling my reach for under £200 and only an extra 145g in weight? Tempting...

Sadly, a new 18-200 VRII is £550, and I'm not willing to spend £450 to get an extra 95mm and a slightly better VR.
Click to expand...

Hi mate,

VR1 used one will be around £280 mark and VR2 used will be around £400
 
The one cheap zoom lens I own is the Nikon 55-200 VR, and I must say, I'm actually surprisingly impressed with it, stopped down a little it's lovely and sharp, though obviously a bit slow.

Personally I stay away from third party lenses, I've had nothing but issues with the ones I've bought. Though, as with everything, there are apparent exceptions like the Tamron 28-75 2.8.

ps I have the 35mm 1.8 too and I love it :)
 
slt_roopan said:
Hi mate,

VR1 used one will be around £280 mark and VR2 used will be around £400
Click to expand...

Hmm, food for thought. Options are;

1. 2nd hand 18-200 VR and sell 18-105. Double my range for an extra £180.
2. 2nd hand 18-200 VR2 and sell 18-105. Double my range and better VR for £300.
3. Buy 2nd hand 70-300 VR (about £300?). Triple my range but extra weight for £300.

Based on that , 1 and 3 seem the better options as I doubt VR2 is so much better than VR1 it's worth £120.

I'd like the 16-85 VR2 and a 70-300 VR2, but Santa hasn't been so kind as to drop the thick end of £1k in my stocking :(
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
The one cheap zoom lens I own is the Nikon 55-200 VR, and I must say, I'm actually surprisingly impressed with it, stopped down a little it's lovely and sharp, though obviously a bit slow.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is, I'd also want a wider lens, and could probably only afford the 18-55 kit lens, which is OK but not great and I'd be lugging two lenses with range 18-200.

Why has no-one made a 16-300 f/2 that wieghts 500g and costs £500? :bonk:

Damn physics! :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top