Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Carroll" data-source="post: 100111" data-attributes="member: 9246">I have the 18-55 kit lens, 35-1.8, and 55-300 for my 5100. Like Ted, I use my 18-55 the most, next would be the 55-300, and then the 35-1.8.Each take excellent images.The 55-300 has to &quot;hunt&quot; once in a while at long ranges (200-300mm), and is slow there for AF. I understand that the 70-300 is much faster AF, and is better if you are going to shoot moving targets...sports, politicians, etc.I was a tightwad, and bought the 55-300. For the small difference, if I knew then, what I know now, I would have went for the 70-300. This does not take away from the wonderful images I get with my 55-300, it is just that for moving subjects, the 70-300 wins. Having said that, for sports there are probably better (and more expensive) lens.I will not get rid of my 18-55 or 35-1.8, I like them a lot, as well as the tele.With DX, our lens range is more limited for DX-specific lens than FX is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Carroll, post: 100111, member: 9246"] I have the 18-55 kit lens, 35-1.8, and 55-300 for my 5100. Like Ted, I use my 18-55 the most, next would be the 55-300, and then the 35-1.8. Each take excellent images. The 55-300 has to "hunt" once in a while at long ranges (200-300mm), and is slow there for AF. I understand that the 70-300 is much faster AF, and is better if you are going to shoot moving targets...sports, politicians, etc. I was a tightwad, and bought the 55-300. For the small difference, if I knew then, what I know now, I would have went for the 70-300. This does not take away from the wonderful images I get with my 55-300, it is just that for moving subjects, the 70-300 wins. Having said that, for sports there are probably better (and more expensive) lens. I will not get rid of my 18-55 or 35-1.8, I like them a lot, as well as the tele. With DX, our lens range is more limited for DX-specific lens than FX is. [/QUOTE]

Verification