Nikon 55-300 vs 70-300: Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good price. However, having some second thoughts. I have used the search here on UHH but didn't find anything that...

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good price. However, having some second thoughts. I have used the search here on UHH but didn't find anything that helped much. Google searches are what gave me second thoughts but I would like the opinion of users here on UHH.

The lens will be used on DX cameras (d5300 and d7100) and would be primarily for landscape and wildlife type shots probably in the 200 to 300mm range.

Can anyone give advice as to whether to keep this lens or look into trading up to the 70-300? Your experience with either or both would be very helpful. It is still in the box at this point.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Cwilson341 wrote:

Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good p... (show quote)

While I do not own the lens if it was me I would bring up the Ken Rockwell site to see what he says about each of the lenses you are interested in. I do not like everything about his site but I do like the straight forward information he gives about cameras and lenses.

Dennis

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I've got a 55-300 Nikon and it does a good job most if the time. Have a 70-300 Sigma and it does a good job all the time. Thinking about getting rid of my 55-300 and going with a Nikon 70-300. I've heard it does do a better job. Nikon, Sig,e and Tamron all make two 70-300 don't know what the difference is other than price?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Cwilson341 wrote:

Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good p... (show quote)

The Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR G model will outperform the Nikon 55-300mm lens in all respects. Its an FX lens and allows you to use the center 2/3 of the opticals and avoid the distortion issues present at the edges. It will also ne sharper at the long end and have less CA issues. The downside is that it costs $200 more than the DX 55-300mm lens.

Murray Loc: New Westminster

Check DPreview on each. The 55-300 gets surprisingly good reviews for the price.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

MT Shooter wrote:

The Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR G model will outperform the Nikon 55-300mm lens in all respects. Its an FX lens and allows you to use the center 2/3 of the opticals and avoid the distortion issues present at the edges. It will also ne sharper at the long end and have less CA issues. The downside is that it costs $200 more than the DX 55-300mm lens.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Cwilson341 wrote:

Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good p... (show quote)

You will probably save some money by opting for the well regarded Tamron SP 70-300 VC instead.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Murray wrote:

Check DPreview on each. The 55-300 gets surprisingly good reviews for the price.

I did look at their info and agree. My initial concerns are that it has a plastic mount and from what I have read, is also slow on autofocus. I certainly have not heard that it is a bad lens. I just want to make the best decision since I plan to use it for a long time.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

dennis2146 wrote:

While I do not own the lens if it was me I would bring up the Ken Rockwell site to see what he says about each of the lenses you are interested in. I do not like everything about his site but I do like the straight forward information he gives about cameras and lenses.

Dennis

Rockwell says it is a good lens but has two concerns-plastic mount and slower autofocus. Both concern me somewhat since I expect to use this lens for a long time. If someone can say it has very good IQ throughout I might overlook the other concerns.

ggttc Loc: TN

I shot the 55-300 for a few years...its a good lens capable of decent results...if budget is a consideration you will be fine with it...if not go for the 70-300

55-300
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-250542-1.html

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

ggttc wrote:

I shot the 55-300 for a few years...its a good lens capable of decent results...if budget is a consideration you will be fine with it...if not go for the 70-300

55-300
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-250542-1.html

Thanks for the advice. Budget is a consideration. However, if the store will give me the same discount on the 70-300 that they did on the other I will make the swap.

Nikonnorm Loc: East Gwillimbury Ont.

MT Shooter wrote:

The Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR G model will outperform the Nikon 55-300mm lens in all respects. Its an FX lens and allows you to use the center 2/3 of the opticals and avoid the distortion issues present at the edges. It will also ne sharper at the long end and have less CA issues. The downside is that it costs $200 more than the DX 55-300mm lens.

The 70=300 is a very sharp lens.Go for it.
Bought it on sale at Henrys for 399.00 reg. 649.00
Love it.
Norm

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Cwilson341 wrote:

Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good p... (show quote)

I've used the 70-300 on a D7100 in the past but was never happy with how it performed at the high end.

No experience with the 55-300 but DXOMARK rates it even lower.

I bet there are third party lenses that perform better in the 200-300mm range that are not too expensive.

(Download)

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Go with the Nikkor 70-300, much better than the Tamy or Sig, and fine tune the focus on your D7100. You will be very happy you did. The D5300 does not have the fine tune option.

Cwilson341 wrote:

Just purchased a new Nikon 55-300 at a very good p... (show quote)

mickeys Loc: Fort Wayne, IN

I have that same lens 55-300, works great for everything you said. here's a pic that I used it for, at the zoo. was about 10 feet away behind clear glass