Nikon 55-300mm

Michael J.

Senior Member
Several month ago I tested my, in that time new purchased, Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens on my D5100 and without tripod and just ooc. Why without tripod cos I grab the lens out from my bag when I see some worth capturing.


A tiny dove is landing on the roof a school behind my school. Distance approximately 300m and focal length 300mm


anflug.jpg



The school itself - Focal length 78mm

schule1.jpg



and now 300mm. Look at that you can see almost the whit in the eyes

schule.jpg

schule3.jpg

schule2.jpg



At the other side you can see our city hospital, distance approx. 700 m, focal length 300mm focused on the letters

kranken.jpg



A monk on his morning-walk passing my school accompanied by a stray dog. Just wanted to see how does the AF speed work.

seinfreund.jpg



bokeh test - distance approx. 7m focal length 300mm

morgengast.jpg



And a close-up zoom of my daughter's miniature horse. Distance 50cmHorse size 20cm Focal length 300mm and tripod and LR 3.6

pferd.jpg
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
Nice "ability" shots. I've been weighing out 55-200mm vs. 55-300mm lately. Budget may keep me to the 200mm though...
 

SteveH

Senior Member
I love my 55-300mm too, had it about 7 months now. They are great for wildlife.

Pretzel - I would strongly recommend saving a bit longer and going for the 300mm... A lot of people buy the 200mm because it's cheaper, but very soon find that missing 100mm quite a big thing. Also, the 300mm has a metal mount, not plastic. If you are looking at a new 200mm, then I would go for a good refurb'ed 300mm instead.
 
Last edited:

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
I love my 55-300mm too, had it about 7 months now. They are great for wildlife.

Pretzel - I would strongly recommend saving a bit longer and going for the 300mm... A lot of people buy the 200mm because it's cheaper, but very soon find that missing 100mm quite a big thing. Also, the 300mm has a metal mount, not plastic. If you are looking at a new 200mm, then I would go for a good refurb'ed 300mm instead.

I am one of those who saved money up front and then decided I needed more for wildlife and bought the 300. If you are shooting wildlife, that is the way to go and I bought mine as a factory refurb with no issues or regrets.

Pat in NH
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
I was looking at refurbs to begin with, so the extra 100mm will take me from 120 to 250. Guess a month or so of extra budgeting prowess won't hurt me. ;)

Thanks for the recommendations!
 

carguy

Senior Member
Very nice. Once again, wish I was as into it now as I was when I bought my 55-200mm. I've learned so much this past few months thanks to this site and my research :)
 

Michael J.

Senior Member
Yesterday from my roof-terrace I tried the tripod, tuned off the vr and I was happy with the result. The temple is exactly sharp as I wanted it.

Ooc jpeg, just resized, no procces or crop

300mm-1.jpg
 

Michael J.

Senior Member
It's an Oyster - Farm in the Sea

9140064230_bdb236c9b2_o.jpg





The Oyster-Worker got their Shelter out the sea so they have a shadow-place for rest during there hard work

9137836339_30a5d02b5c_o.jpg
 

Michael J.

Senior Member
Re: Nikon 55-300mm - Great performance

Yesterday I tried again my 55-300 again

sea-1.jpg




I cropped the boat - to see what can I see - cos with my eyes on the scene I couldn't see anything well. And after cropping I saw people on it.

sea-2.jpg




Behind th erboat I spotted something orange. Yes it was a flag

sea-3.jpg




And behind th eflag another boat

sea-4.jpg


Nothing to say wow, great shot but to say wow this Nikon 55-300mm lens is great.
 
Last edited:
Top