GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I sold my 70-200/2.8 lens because it was too heavy (& therefore I only used it once). Now I don't have anything that zooms in close. I know that the lenses I'm looking at are not the same quality as the one I sold but they'll fill the spot vacated with less weight and size.

I have used "search" in this website & have concluded that 70-300 is better than 55-300 & those that bought refurbished are happy and in fact think they may be BETTER than new because they go through a more thorough testing before being available for sale. There also was positive comments about the Sigma lens.

I will be using this on my Nikon D7100 & I have never bought refurbished before and I don't think I would consider "used". I own one off-brand lens and was not sorry. I do have an 18-300 but that is permanently on the D5000 for my husband. He's perfectly content with that setup but I'm a little pickier.

Currently, I am on the B&H waiting list for a refurbished Nikon 70-300mm/f 4.5-5.6 VR II for $400.

So, here's my question: I'd like to hear from folks that have this lens or the Sigma version and other opinions relating to my assessment. Thanking you in advance!!

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

That 70-200mm f2.8 is not a lightweight to some. The lens refurbished, 70-300mm, that you are awaiting from B&H is lighter, and is a very good lens replacement. Just not as fast as your 70-200mm. Good luck.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Thank you for your input. I use my 24-70mm/f2.8 90% of the time & it's weight is fine for me (almost double in weight as the 70-300). I do know that it won't be as fast, but I am OK with that. I'm hoping it is sharp enough.

shakr524 Loc: Springville NY

I have the Tamron 70-300SP-VC and am very happy with it. It is also on a D7100 and is significantly sharper than my friends Nikon 70-300VR when you get past 200mm. I would highly recommend it. I personally would go for the 70-300 from either company because they are Full Frame. This would allow a move to FF in the future without replacing this lens.

Shane

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

I have both these lenses and will put the 55-300 up against the 70-300 any day...55-300 about $300, 70-300 about $700...the 55-300 is one of the most under rated lenses there is...cheap and does a fantastic job. Won me several photo comps so others must think it's pretty good as well...I compared the two by shooting the same pics at the same time (with a lens change of course) on a few occasions and I couldn't tell the difference although my eye tended to favour the 55-300 for some reason...I only ever buy new "stuff" unless it's from someone I know so I can't give an opinion on that...
Ron.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Thank you for this insight. It is just the kind of information I was looking for. I do like the idea that it is full-frame. I've been tempted many times to move up to the D750. Some of my lenses are DX but they will be perfect for the D5000 that my husband uses but it is also a backup camera!

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

Interesting!!! I always had the impression that the closer the "mm", the better the lens. I usually only buy new as well and usually Nikon brand.

Mark Bski Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle

Good topic!

I was in Best Buy looking at the same two lenses today AND the 28-300 wondering the same thing. I like the range of the 28-300 but I wonder if the glass on the 70-300 isn't any better, especially for the money.

Anyone have thoughts on this????

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Check the Nikonusa.com site for factory refurbs. I just purchased a 28-300 at a killer price.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

I have only the 55-300 lens, it came as a kit lens with my camera. As far as I'm concerned it is great. I have had several photos published that were taken with this lens.

Frankly, I cannot compare it to any other lens, but as far as I am concerned, I am very happy with it!

PN_man Loc: Western New York

I gave myself the nikon 70-300 for Christmas. I bought it used from KEH for about $350. Quite happy with it. I was also considering the comparable Tamron. By all accounts the two are very close to equal withe the Tammy having better stabilization and lower cost, but the Nikon better sharpness at the long end and more reliable future compatability.
The Sigma was consistently rated lower than these two but it is considerably less expensive.
KEH still had both the Nikon and Tamron when I last checked.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

I have the 55-300 and it is wonderful, crystal clear.

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

I have the Nikon 18-140 and the 70-300. I enjoy these lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Some comparison links.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nikon%2055-300%20vs%2070-300

Generally speaking, a smaller focal length spread results in a better lens.

pahtspix

I've owned that Tamron 70-300mm VC for about 4 or 5 years, and it its a fantastic lens..I've taken MANY hummingbird and Butterfly images with this lens..I think I paid $350 inclusive of a Tamrom $50 rebate..(Tamron is always doing rebates)..Also has a 6 year warranty..you cannot go wrong with purchasing on IMHO..I just recently purchased the latest Tamron 150-600mm for my Nikon D500..Totally happy with this lens as well!!