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
Lenses
Telephoto
DX vs FX
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="goz63" data-source="post: 6773" data-attributes="member: 1557"><p>Cal, You are right, save the 70-300 non-vr, Nikon makes a great lens no matter what. Some are going to be better, but often they cost a lot more than I am willing to spend and I don't think I would get my monies worth. By that I mean I don't need the extra "whatever" the money is buying. I have the new 55-300 and I could not be happier with it. I don't believe the 70-300 VR is better. The main advantage for it is the ability to work again on FX. Again it seems the DX (55-300) gets pushed aside because it is not FX. I would not trade it for a 70-300 VR. The latter is heavier, more expensive, does not go short enough (ie 70mm vs 55mm), does not have the tripod detection feature to name a few differences. I don't mean to say the 70-330 VR is a bad lens, it isn't, but I would not trade it for my 55-300. Before the 55-300, it was the way to go for both DX and FX to get the reach, now there is some competition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="goz63, post: 6773, member: 1557"] Cal, You are right, save the 70-300 non-vr, Nikon makes a great lens no matter what. Some are going to be better, but often they cost a lot more than I am willing to spend and I don't think I would get my monies worth. By that I mean I don't need the extra "whatever" the money is buying. I have the new 55-300 and I could not be happier with it. I don't believe the 70-300 VR is better. The main advantage for it is the ability to work again on FX. Again it seems the DX (55-300) gets pushed aside because it is not FX. I would not trade it for a 70-300 VR. The latter is heavier, more expensive, does not go short enough (ie 70mm vs 55mm), does not have the tripod detection feature to name a few differences. I don't mean to say the 70-330 VR is a bad lens, it isn't, but I would not trade it for my 55-300. Before the 55-300, it was the way to go for both DX and FX to get the reach, now there is some competition. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
DX vs FX
Top