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
Help decide between 2 lenses - URGENT
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="Mycenius" data-source="post: 165625" data-attributes="member: 14714"><p>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 "<em><span style="color: #000000">Actually i tries both lenses yesterday, i always wanted to buy 55-300mm but when i was testing <strong>suddenly 70-300mm pictures looked better</strong></span></em><span style="color: #000000">"</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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...</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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...</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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).</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">P.S. Have you read the reviews at Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell's sites:</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><a href="http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm</a></p><p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm" target="_blank">http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm</a></p><p><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm" target="_blank"></a></p><p>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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mycenius, post: 165625, member: 14714"] 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 "[I][COLOR=#000000]Actually i tries both lenses yesterday, i always wanted to buy 55-300mm but when i was testing [B]suddenly 70-300mm pictures looked better[/B][/COLOR][/I][COLOR=#000000]"[/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]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: [/COLOR][URL="http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm"]http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm [/URL][URL="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm"]http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm [/URL] 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). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Help decide between 2 lenses - URGENT
Top
