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.

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

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.

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!!