Help decide between 2 lenses - URGENT

S

SJD

Senior Member
Hi As you see, my Nikon is 5200.

I'm thinking between the two lenses below. I can afford both i don't to waste my hard earn money.

Is there any good reason as yo why i should go for 70-300mm ?

55-300mm AFS VR f/4.5-5.6G ED - $355
70-300mm AFS VR f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED - $547

Please help !!!
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
It also depends on the lenses you have currently. If you have say a 35 or 50 then you dont need the 55-300, get the 70-300. Also depends what you are planning on for future purposes. I have the 70-300 and its great, but I also have a 50 f/1.8, so dont need the wider side.
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
The 70-300 is the better lens optically and in build quality so get it if those things are important. If saving money and getting a little more range is more important get the 55-300. I doubt you'll see much difference in jpegs or small prints.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I would say the 70-300 and take a look at the Tamron VC version also. These will work on Fx if you ever decide to go that route.
 
P

Pretzel

Senior Member
The 70-300 gets consistent reviews saying the AF is faster, plus it's internal focus (IF) so you won't get filter rotation on focus. 2 other nice features: you get near instant manual focus override when needed, and should you get a full frame body, it will swap over without issues.

Check out refurbs. I know Adorama and Cameta offer factory refurbs around 350, with Cameta offering a 1 year warranty. After much research, about to buy one myself!
 
S

SJD

Senior Member
Thank you all for great replies. Yes. i get the message clearly. It seems overwhelmingly 70-300mm is recommended over 55-300mm.

Actually i tries both lenses yesterday, i always wanted to buy 55-300mm but when i was testing suddenly 70-300mm pictures looked better, thats what halted my decision.

Please help me answer the following also. possibly Yes Yes

1. You all feel that spending extra $200 worth for "Internal Focusing" feature ?
2. My camera is 5200 and i may not go for a full frame for the next 5 years. Is it still worth it ?

You guys very successfully convinced me on 70-300mm :)

please help me on the last 2 questions as well..
 
Mycenius

Mycenius

Senior Member
SJD said:
Thank you all for great replies. Yes. i get the message clearly. It seems overwhelmingly 70-300mm is recommended over 55-300mm.

Actually i tries both lenses yesterday, i always wanted to buy 55-300mm but when i was testing suddenly 70-300mm pictures looked better, thats what halted my decision.

Please help me answer the following also. possibly Yes Yes

1. You all feel that spending extra $200 worth for "Internal Focusing" feature ?
Click to expand...

SJD, you are getting a lot more than IF from the 70-300. The build quality and optical quality is better I believe than the 55-300. You said yourself "Actually i tries both lenses yesterday, i always wanted to buy 55-300mm but when i was testing suddenly 70-300mm pictures looked better"

The 55-300 is essentially a kit 'lens' - its built to a price point to make it economic to include them in 'kits' with a body (and the 18-55 lens for example). The 70-300 is built to a price point too, but its a higher one trying to balance cost with more pro-quality build/optics. Its still not a true pro lens, but it is reportedly a very good pro-sumer one, and excellent value for money...

Remember you can get the Tamron 70-300 VC lens for less than the Nikon, and its apparently a fraction sharper at 200mm! It's not quite as fast to focus I think but would only be about $100 more than the 55-300 instead of $200...

I've been mulling over the differences and benefits of 70-200 or 70-300 options for a couple of weeks or so - and the 55-300 was quickly discarded (from my list) as not worth considering (its only redeeming feature is it's cheap).

:)

P.S. Have you read the reviews at Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell's sites:
http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

Note Ken Rockwell suggests if you don't need the 300mm reach, the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR is probably a better lens (I have one of these and it's a great all purpose walk around lens).
 
Last edited:
D

dragion

Senior Member
SJD said:
Thank you all for great replies. Yes. i get the message clearly. It seems overwhelmingly 70-300mm is recommended over 55-300mm.

Actually i tries both lenses yesterday, i always wanted to buy 55-300mm but when i was testing suddenly 70-300mm pictures looked better, thats what halted my decision.

Please help me answer the following also. possibly Yes Yes

1. You all feel that spending extra $200 worth for "Internal Focusing" feature ?
2. My camera is 5200 and i may not go for a full frame for the next 5 years. Is it still worth it ?

You guys very successfully convinced me on 70-300mm :)

please help me on the last 2 questions as well..
Click to expand...

Can't really answer question one, since I don't have any experience with the 55-300mm...only 55-200mm.
​But I would say Yes...my $.02.
Yes, to answer two.

I have the D3100 and don't plan on upgrading the body anytime soon.
Mine came with the 18-55mm kit lens and decided to add the 55-200mm for longer coverage.
I realized that the 18-55mm didn't have the reach I wanted and constantly switching to the 55-200mm wasn't convenient.
I decided to upgrade to 18-105mm & 70-300mm and can't be more pleased with my decision.

I ended up purchasing both lenses from local sellers on Craigslist.
Confirming from both sellers the condition and background of the lenses before meeting up and testing/purchasing them.

I paid $180 for the 18-105mm in almost new condition...used for 6 months.
I got the 70-300mm pretty much brand new for $320...just a month old and used only twice.

So, if you research carefully, you can get a great deal...just need to look. :eek:

​I hope this helped!
 
E

Epoc

Senior Member
1. Yes
2. Yes

It's a better lens and worth the extra coin. Go for a refurb and save some $ if that's what's stopping holding you back.
 
Last edited:
M

Mikeydigs

Senior Member
I recently purchased the 70-300 refurbished from Cameta Camera it was a great deal with a warranty and I bundled it with a kit that included some filters .......... I have to say its great . I did a lot of reading before I purchased it and its superior to 55-300 , so they say in reviews ..... I like it because it sharp and light weight . I also have the 70-200 2.8 vr its great but its heavy and expensive You wont be sorry with that lens .
 
Mycenius

Mycenius

Senior Member
Mikeydigs said:
I recently purchased the 70-300 refurbished from Cameta Camera..... I like it because it sharp and light weight . I also have the 70-200 2.8 vr its great but its heavy and expensive...
Click to expand...

Mike, What are your thoughts on the IQ between the two at the different focal lengths? I've been umming and ahhing for a while over what to buy and am about to pull the lever on a 70-300, although probably the Tamron not the Nikon (solely because it's $100+ cheaper here, opens wider f/4 vs. f/4.5, and is arguably a fraction sharper than the Nikon at the longer zooms IIRC). I really wanted to get a 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 (or even the 80-200 f/2.8) but exactly as you say they are costly & heavy - and as I mostly will be carrying mine either on day hikes/bush walks, or when travelling, the weight saving is probably more significant.

I'm turning into a bit of a fast glass addict...! :rolleyes: :cool:

Would love to hear if you have done any direct comparisons... Either way all these lenses are fantastic by the sounds of it - and for no pro or semi-pro enthusiasts like me I suspect the 70-300 (either one) will be a pretty stunning lens when used right!
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
The 70-200 f/4 isn't heavy. I have the 80-200 2.8D, the Nikon 70-300, and now the 70-200 f/4. The f/4 is the best of the bunch followed by the 80-200 and the 70-300. The 70-300 is actually a nice lens from 70-200; It's a bit soft from 200-300. But it makes for a nice DX travel lens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Mycenius

Mycenius

Senior Member
jwstl said:
The 70-200 f/4 isn't heavy.
Click to expand...

No - I guess not, but it is slightly heavier than either 70-300, and more important the f/2.8 is of course significantly heavier than the other 3... I've read a lot about the weight being noticeable over time (i.e. when you've carried it around on your camera for half a day or had it slung around your neck. On a related note I see the 70-200 f/4 is looking to be a very very good telephoto-zoom lens by all accounts - I think it sounds a bit underrated compared to the f/2.8 from what many people have told me...

Nikon 70-300: 0.745kg 143mm
Tamron 70-300: 0.756kg 151mm
Nikon 70-200 f/4: 0.850kg 178mm
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8: 1.540kg 206mm

jwstl said:
...The 70-300 is actually a nice lens from 70-200; It's a bit soft from 200-300. But it makes for a nice DX travel lens.
Click to expand...

Well on a DX camera it is 105mm-450mm of course :) - so you should actually get up to 300mm equivalent before the softness hits (i.e. the same as if you had a 70-200 zoom) - and as mentioned the Tamron is rated to be a bit sharper in that top end (so not quite as soft as the Nikon). Either way on a DX you'd probably rarely need to push right out to the 300mm (as that's 450mm) which is the weakest area of performance according to several people (incl. Thom Hogan). I'd love a 70-200 f/4 but it's almost 4x the cost of the Tamron 70-300 here, and I just don't know if I'd use the zoom range enough to justify the investment. And Thom Hogan rates the Nikon 70-300 when used in the 70-200 range (105-300 equivalent) as basically optically faultless.

But anyway, yes if you mean by a DX Travel Lens that it's a good companion to a DX body for light weight travel and long zoom - definitely - I hope so as it's where I am planning to head... :)

:D

Appreciate the response...
 
Top