Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Which 300mm lens should I buy?
Page 1 of 2 next>
May 19, 2012 11:30:23   #
jackie_nick115
 
I have a Nikon D3100, I would like to buy a Nikon telephoto zoom lens. The 55-300mm AF-S f/4.5-5.6G DX ED VR is $200 less than the 70-300mm AF-S f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF VR. Should I save for the 70-300 or is the 55-300 a good enough lens for the "hobby photographer"

Reply
May 19, 2012 15:03:41   #
Gidgette Loc: Boerne,Texas
 
Welcome to UHH.

Reply
May 19, 2012 18:09:00   #
deej
 
If you plan on shooting sports the 70-300 will be little faster on focus, if you plan on going FF in the future it will work on it too. The 55-300 works fantastic but is a dedicated dx lens has slower focusing ( which could be overcome somewhat by prefocusing). The 70-300 does cost about $200 more. Now, if you also own the 18-55 kit lens the 55-300 would not leave any gaps but would you miss the 15mm??? I also was in this delimma and assuming I will eventually go FF I chose a 28-300 but use it on a crop camera. This lens replaced the 18-55 and gave me the reach I wanted but at a $1000 price tag. I am also going to purchase a 10-24 in the future to round it out. Good luck in your choice!!!

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2012 11:06:59   #
SavvyGal13 Loc: Colorado
 
deej wrote:
If you plan on shooting sports the 70-300 will be little faster on focus, if you plan on going FF in the future it will work on it too. The 55-300 works fantastic but is a dedicated dx lens has slower focusing ( which could be overcome somewhat by prefocusing). The 70-300 does cost about $200 more. Now, if you also own the 18-55 kit lens the 55-300 would not leave any gaps but would you miss the 15mm??? I also was in this delimma and assuming I will eventually go FF I chose a 28-300 but use it on a crop camera. This lens replaced the 18-55 and gave me the reach I wanted but at a $1000 price tag. I am also going to purchase a 10-24 in the future to round it out. Good luck in your choice!!!
If you plan on shooting sports the 70-300 will be ... (show quote)


Are you saying the 55-300 DX can't be used on a FF camera? I have that lens and thought that it could but obviously still crops the photo. I did a lot of research before buying my D3100, but at that time didn't have any idea I might want to go FF later. That's a real hazard in photography. :-). (I do love the 55-300, though.)

Reply
May 20, 2012 13:41:57   #
madcapmagishion
 
I too have the Nikon D3100 and love my 55-300mm, I use it as my main walk around lens. For the price $249 (what I paid for mine new) you can't go wrong with the 55-300mm AF-S f/4.5-5.6G DX ED VR.

Reply
May 20, 2012 14:49:52   #
deej
 
It can be used but the image would be cropped to dx size, not a huge problem but worth knowing

Reply
May 20, 2012 14:51:42   #
deej
 
madcapmagishion wrote:
I too have the Nikon D3100 and love my 55-300mm, I use it as my main walk around lens. For the price $249 (what I paid for mine new) you can't go wrong with the 55-300mm AF-S f/4.5-5.6G DX ED VR.


Agreed, lot a bang for the buck!

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2012 14:59:35   #
PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach
 
Just a note: all lenses with variable f/stops for the maximum aperture are not professional lenses, and the performance does speak to this issue.

That said, I did shoot a book cover with my lowly 18-200 Nikkor.

Reply
May 20, 2012 16:28:34   #
charles brown Loc: Tennesse
 
I have the 55-300 - love it

Reply
May 20, 2012 19:31:44   #
madcapmagishion
 
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
Just a note: all lenses with variable f/stops for the maximum aperture are not professional lenses, and the performance does speak to this issue.

That said, I did shoot a book cover with my lowly 18-200 Nikkor.


I don't believe a "professional" would consider purchasing the 55-300mm as it's a DX crop lens. Not many pro's using DX cameras are there?

Reply
May 20, 2012 20:13:23   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
The Sigma 100-300 F4 is a great lens - IF you can get a good one ! I have and use one ( discontinued, and on sale now + e-Bay ).

Reply
 
 
May 20, 2012 20:14:33   #
deej
 
I personally know a few "pros" using a dx to an addition to FF. the DX can give a different perspective in many situations. Think about the D7000, D300 etc...

Reply
May 20, 2012 21:48:27   #
madcapmagishion
 
deej wrote:
an addition to FF.


In addition to FF, yes! But as a primary camera?

Reply
May 21, 2012 07:39:32   #
deej
 
The camera really does not take the pic, it's the operator. Yes, the camera choice can limit your options, but no matter which system is chosen, each has their respective limits, benefits, and problems. Dx is lighter and portable and could be the primary if not the only choice given the desired results are acceptable. The size and weight of a dx make it a good choice in some cases like extreme conditions that warrant light weight packing etc... Yes, the FF have better sensors, lower noise, and allow capability of larger printing but this is always rapidly changing. A medium format similar to and including the Hasselblad can take great pictures and allow even larger printing than the FF. the real choice is picking the right tool for the job. Similar to using a Bugatti Veyron as a school bus and racing the family car. Both can do it but both have restrictions and limits.(surely there is a better comparison)

Reply
May 21, 2012 08:15:35   #
Nikonfan70 Loc: Long Island
 
I use the afs55-300vr on my 3100, Works just fine for the price.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.