Too Long, Don't Wanna Read version:
55-300 is optically an okay lens, maybe even good. The VR is excellent. Autofocus is unbearably slow - as in useless. The build quality is unacceptably flimsy.
Full version:
Yesterday my local pro gear shop had an event (tele lens tour) and they asked me to do a short presentation and also to help with their customers, who had access to all Canon and Nikon long tele lenses (Nikon had brought several 400-500-600 and 180-400 lenses plus one 800).
I volunteered because I wanted to test drive the 180-400. The short while I shot with it was fun and the lens is absolutely superb. I still decided to keep my 400/2.8VR-G for the time being and when the time comes I will upgrade to the 400/2.8VR-E FL, because I am not a zoom guy.
Anyway, long story short, they couldn't pay for my time and we had agreed to that, but they made a nice gesture and let me pick something from the used shelves and I chose a D3200 and a AF-S VR DX 55-300 for my 9 years old daughter . She has been shooting her D40 six years now and I think an upgrade is in order.
Nikon has never produced a lens that's optically bad, imho. The 55-300 has got a lot of bad press and I thought to myself why not shoot a few tests. I decided to pit it against a tough competition at 200mm and 300mm focal lengths. Namely, the AI 80-200/4.5, AFS 70-200/2.8VR, AFS 200/2VR2, AFS 300/2.8VR and AFS 400/2.8VR. I also used TC14EIII and TC17EII. I decided to upres/downres the images so that they match the 200 or 300 mm focal length of the 55-300.
I didn't do any sharpening or noise processing to the images because that's how I work.
Here's the contenders:
First the 200mm images and then 100% crops of them.
55-300 @ 200mm
70-200 @ 200mm
200vr @ 200mm
80-200 @ 200mm
55-300 @ 200mm
70-200 @ 200mm
200vr @ 200mm
80-200 @ 200mm
300vr downrezzed to 67% @ ~200mm
Then the 300mm results:
55-300 @ 300mm
200vr + 1.4TC @ 280mm
300vr @ 300mm
400vr @ 400mm
And the 300mm crops
55-300 @ 300mm
70-200 uprezzed to 150% @ ~300mm
200vr uprezzed to 150% @ ~300mm
200vr + tc14eIII uprezzed to 107% @ ~300mm
300vr @ 300mm
400vr downrezzed to 75% @ ~300mm
Final verdict? I will give away or sell the 55-300 to someone and give the 70-200vr to my daughter. The size difference is negligible and the weight isn't an issue either. She absolutely loves the 70-200 and now she can put it to her "new" D3200.
The 55-300 is not bad optically, to the contrary, but the autofocus is unusable and the lens cannot really be used with manual focusing either because the focus ring is way too flimsy.
55-300 is optically an okay lens, maybe even good. The VR is excellent. Autofocus is unbearably slow - as in useless. The build quality is unacceptably flimsy.
Full version:
Yesterday my local pro gear shop had an event (tele lens tour) and they asked me to do a short presentation and also to help with their customers, who had access to all Canon and Nikon long tele lenses (Nikon had brought several 400-500-600 and 180-400 lenses plus one 800).
I volunteered because I wanted to test drive the 180-400. The short while I shot with it was fun and the lens is absolutely superb. I still decided to keep my 400/2.8VR-G for the time being and when the time comes I will upgrade to the 400/2.8VR-E FL, because I am not a zoom guy.
Anyway, long story short, they couldn't pay for my time and we had agreed to that, but they made a nice gesture and let me pick something from the used shelves and I chose a D3200 and a AF-S VR DX 55-300 for my 9 years old daughter . She has been shooting her D40 six years now and I think an upgrade is in order.
Nikon has never produced a lens that's optically bad, imho. The 55-300 has got a lot of bad press and I thought to myself why not shoot a few tests. I decided to pit it against a tough competition at 200mm and 300mm focal lengths. Namely, the AI 80-200/4.5, AFS 70-200/2.8VR, AFS 200/2VR2, AFS 300/2.8VR and AFS 400/2.8VR. I also used TC14EIII and TC17EII. I decided to upres/downres the images so that they match the 200 or 300 mm focal length of the 55-300.
I didn't do any sharpening or noise processing to the images because that's how I work.
Here's the contenders:
First the 200mm images and then 100% crops of them.
55-300 @ 200mm
70-200 @ 200mm
200vr @ 200mm
80-200 @ 200mm
55-300 @ 200mm
70-200 @ 200mm
200vr @ 200mm
80-200 @ 200mm
300vr downrezzed to 67% @ ~200mm
Then the 300mm results:
55-300 @ 300mm
200vr + 1.4TC @ 280mm
300vr @ 300mm
400vr @ 400mm
And the 300mm crops
55-300 @ 300mm
70-200 uprezzed to 150% @ ~300mm
200vr uprezzed to 150% @ ~300mm
200vr + tc14eIII uprezzed to 107% @ ~300mm
300vr @ 300mm
400vr downrezzed to 75% @ ~300mm
Final verdict? I will give away or sell the 55-300 to someone and give the 70-200vr to my daughter. The size difference is negligible and the weight isn't an issue either. She absolutely loves the 70-200 and now she can put it to her "new" D3200.
The 55-300 is not bad optically, to the contrary, but the autofocus is unusable and the lens cannot really be used with manual focusing either because the focus ring is way too flimsy.
Last edited: