Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
D3100 upgrade choices
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 643610" data-attributes="member: 43924"><p>This is not a matter of 70-300 being intrinsically better than 55-300 - although in general, the wider the zoom range, the harder it becomes to achieve consistent image quality (IQ). Lens design always requires compromises, though, both from a cost perspective and from a laws-of-optics one. Zoom lenses inevitably have one specific focal length where they are the sharpest, which means other focal lengths have to be a little softer. On top of that, there are many other performance parameters, such as chromatic aberration, that are strongly influenced by the lens designer's choices.</p><p></p><p> The 55-300 is a relatively old design in which Nikon apparently favored high IQ on the shorter side over the longer end. According to the tests and sample pics I saw, it delivers pretty good quality at 55 and is still not bad at 150 but softens considerably when you go beyond 200.</p><p></p><p>In contrast, the new 70-300, to some degree also its predecessor, likely saw greater emphasis on IQ at the longer end. On top of that, the AF-P version is a much newer design and thus benefits from several general advancements Nikon made over the years. You may have noticed that lenses have become better almost across the board in recent years. As a result, your 55-300 may be at par, maybe even slightly better, at 70mm, but the 70-300 wins hands down at the long end. That seems to matter much more to your shooting, hence my recommendation. Don't worry about the gap between your 18-55 and this 70-300. In my experience, you won't ever see it as an issue.</p><p></p><p>Don't get me wrong here: top IQ at 300mm gets expensive quickly from a design perspective (large glass, expensive coating, etc.), so even the new AF-P 70-300 will be outperformed by Nikon's 200-500 at 300mm, for example, definitely also by all of Nikon's 300mm prime lenses. Between the 55-300 and the AF-P 70-300, however, you'll likely see a notable step up. </p><p></p><p>What I often do is take a lens I already own to a camera shop and shoot a few pics there with it, then take the same shots with the lens I am considering. I then compare them on my computer and decide whether I like what I see. Looks like there are several camera stores in Preston, so maybe that's an option for you, too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lokatz, post: 643610, member: 43924"] This is not a matter of 70-300 being intrinsically better than 55-300 - although in general, the wider the zoom range, the harder it becomes to achieve consistent image quality (IQ). Lens design always requires compromises, though, both from a cost perspective and from a laws-of-optics one. Zoom lenses inevitably have one specific focal length where they are the sharpest, which means other focal lengths have to be a little softer. On top of that, there are many other performance parameters, such as chromatic aberration, that are strongly influenced by the lens designer's choices. The 55-300 is a relatively old design in which Nikon apparently favored high IQ on the shorter side over the longer end. According to the tests and sample pics I saw, it delivers pretty good quality at 55 and is still not bad at 150 but softens considerably when you go beyond 200. In contrast, the new 70-300, to some degree also its predecessor, likely saw greater emphasis on IQ at the longer end. On top of that, the AF-P version is a much newer design and thus benefits from several general advancements Nikon made over the years. You may have noticed that lenses have become better almost across the board in recent years. As a result, your 55-300 may be at par, maybe even slightly better, at 70mm, but the 70-300 wins hands down at the long end. That seems to matter much more to your shooting, hence my recommendation. Don't worry about the gap between your 18-55 and this 70-300. In my experience, you won't ever see it as an issue. Don't get me wrong here: top IQ at 300mm gets expensive quickly from a design perspective (large glass, expensive coating, etc.), so even the new AF-P 70-300 will be outperformed by Nikon's 200-500 at 300mm, for example, definitely also by all of Nikon's 300mm prime lenses. Between the 55-300 and the AF-P 70-300, however, you'll likely see a notable step up. What I often do is take a lens I already own to a camera shop and shoot a few pics there with it, then take the same shots with the lens I am considering. I then compare them on my computer and decide whether I like what I see. Looks like there are several camera stores in Preston, so maybe that's an option for you, too. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
D3100 upgrade choices
Top