RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Ken Rockwell rates the 70-300mm a bit higher due to it's better capabilities with sports photography. I, too, am looking at the 70-300 lens as a possibility because it will work with both my D7200 and D610. I always look to refurbished first, and usually buy from Nikon USA, Camera Camera, or Adorama when considering refurbished gear. I have yet to have a problem with any refurbished Nikon product I have purchased.

Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

I purchased the 70-300 that you are inquiring about, refurb from Nikon just a couple months ago for 269.00 as they emailed me a special Black Friday deal on this lens. Arrived appearing brand new and works as such. Shop around for price- as long as it is Nikon refurb, it is a winner.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I used to have the Nikon 55-300. I currently have the 70-300 and 28-300 Nikon lenses along with a 70-200 VR II. The 55-300 seemed to me as optically good as the 70-300. The only real advantage I found with the 70-300 was the ability to over-ride the auto focus without needing to switch to manual. Not a big deal most of the time. Also, with the 28-300, it focus breathes, meaning that with the lens fully extended to 300mm when shooting up close, it is not a true 300mm. Again, not that big a deal most of the time. Any one of these will probably serve you well. The 55-300 is a dx lens, so if you ever want to go full frame, the other ones would be your better choice.

edfgrf1951 Loc: Chatsworth Ga.

Sent you a pm.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I used to own the 55-300mm and enjoyed it, but later traded it in for the 70-300mm and do like it better. Also, using it on the crop sensor camera will give you added apparent reach, equivalent to 450mm at the upper end. Of course, losing on the lower end, equivalent to 105mm. The main thing you lose, though, is angle of view, but when shooting from a distance at a particular subject, who cares?!

All of the lenses I currently own are either pre-owned or refurbished. Buying from B&H, Adorama, Nikon, and other trusted vendors, you have the assurance they have been checked over and will be at least as good as the rating given.


I also own the 24-70mm and love it. Mine is the older version without VR which is just about 2 pounds (the newer VR version is 2.35 pounds). The 70-300mm is about 1.7 pounds. So actually, these lenses are fairly similar in weight. The 70-200mm f/2.8 weighs 3.4 pounds, so it is heavier than the 24-70 by about 1.5 pounds.

Just curious - is 1.5 pounds really that much more to carry? I'm actually planning to eventually replace my 70-300 with the 70-200 simply because I love the added sharpness and light-gathering ability. And it is compatible with a teleconverter if I miss that extra distance. Or I could buy the 300mm f/4 prime which weighs less than 2 pounds.

It is interesting to hear people talk about different cameras and lenses as though they were monstrously huge and heavy! A 300mm f/2.8 prime weighs over 6 pounds, and the 400mm f/2.8 prime weights over 8 pounds - THOSE are monsters... (as well as very expensive). And I just added a D810 to my D7000, and saw some people saying what a monster that camera is!!! (Only 1/2 pound difference.) I use a tripod a lot, but especially for the longer focal lengths. Unless the light is very good, it is very difficult (hand-held) to get a fast enough shutter speed without a big increase in ISO to prevent camera shake. The length of the lens magnifies any little movement.

Susan

edfgrf1951 Loc: Chatsworth Ga.

I have the 70-300 for sale in classified fs section here. It was bought from Keh about 6 months ago was rated E+ buy them. Take a look let me know if you are interested.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I just bought the 55-300 from Nikon, refurbished, for $149. But I think the sale is now over and it is back to $200.

I liked the 55-300 but gave mine to my daughter-in-law when I got a 28-300. She gave me her 55-200, which I feel sucks compared to the 55-300. I decided I want the 55-300 back for its somewhat lighter weight and equal or better image quality compared to the 28-300 (which I am keeping). Daughter-in-law wouldn't swap back (called me an Indian Giver), so I bought a replacement. It came last week and like all Nikon refurbs is in new condition.

Nikon might put it on sale again in March. They always put lenses on sale in March.

johncaccese Loc: Pittsfield, MA

I have the 55-300mm lens and I use it on my D7000. It's a great combination, and I've been able to use it hand-held with ease. I took several wildlife shots with it when riding at Disney's Animal Kingdom on their Safari ride and the shots were surprisingly sharp. For the price, this lens is difficult to beat.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Consider the 28-300mm. It's not as heavy as the 70-200mm, but it covers a wider range than the 55-300mm and is a very nice lens, attested to by many UHH members....incl. those who use it on their D8XX series cameras.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

If you are going to use it on a DX body look at the Nikon 18mm - 300mm lens. Nikon has them refurbished right now for $600.00.

Don

llawryf

I bought the 70-300 refurbished for my D7100 (also refurbished). Very happy with both. It is lighter than some other zoom lenses. I take pictures of birds - mostly handheld, and have gotten great shots. I read a lot of reviews of various lenses first, and that was the one that seemed the best for my needs and price range. My other lens is the 18-140 kit lens for when I want a wider angle, landscapes, etc.

bwilliams

For the type of shooting I do I did not like the 70-300. On a d7000 I found 70mm was too long and the 55-to 300 worked out a lot better. I shoot a verity of subjects.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I've checked the Nikon site frequently but haven't found this lens yet. I did consider the 28-300. It's supposed to be better than the 18-300 (at least on a crop sensor) but I didn't want to practically duplicate a lens we already own. Thanx for your input

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I think better sharpness is more important than better stabilization since there are a number of ways to stabilize a lens. If a picture isn't sharp, there's very little that can be done about it. Thank you. I think $399 for a refurbished Nikon is a good way to go.

I really would like to hear from those that have purchased refurbished lenses and if it matters where the lens was refurbished, say Nikon compared to the ABC stores. In my case, I was wondering how this refurbished lens from B&H compares to the same lens refurbished at Nikon. I do know from experience that B&H stands behind its products. I have exchanged and/or returned items in the past (but the items I have PURCHASED is far greater...lol)

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I was wondering about that as well. Having the 70-300 instead of the 55-300 would necessitate the need to change lenses more often. On the other hand, there is a big overlap, especially if I use my 18-140.

Actually, I thought the 70-300 would be the perfect compliment to the 24-70/2.8