guyaurora Loc: Aurora, Ohio

Need advice on lenses.
I have a Nikon 70-200 DX lens. Is it advantageous to exchange it for either a 55-300mm DX lens or a 70-300 DX?
My thinking is the extra reach worth the exchange.
I am going to South Africa and want a lens that will give me the broadest coverage without tremendous cost.
I have a 18-55 for normal shots.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Logically, since you have the 18-55, you would go for the 55-300, and it costs much less and is smaller than the 70-300. The 70-300 is larger, heavier, more expensive and a better lens. I use the 28-300.

cthahn

Not enough difference to consider.

d3200prime

I would highly recommend a AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED from Nikon. I shoot with this lens and get stellar results. The auto focus is very fast and VR helps stop blurred pics. A new one can be had from Nikon for 500 or I see a used one on ebay for 293 which claims to be in perferct condition. You will thank me later.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

To be clear, Nikon doesn't make a 70-200 DX lens.
Nikon lists several FX models:3 with a 2.8 constant aperture and one an f/4 constant aperture.
(constant aperture means the maximum aperture remains constant throughout the zoom range but it's more expensive to make and not as small)
The f/2.8 versions of these lenses are considered part of Nikon's trilogy of their best zoom lenses: Fast, sharp but heavy and expensive (starting at $1,399 for the f/4).

Nikon lists five 70-300 zooms, 2 are DX, the others FX.
They are all smaller and lighter, slower maximum with a variable aperture and less expensive (the most expensive is $749- half the price of the least expensive 70-200).
(a variable aperture is less expensive to make and smaller, but the maximum aperture changes as the focal length gets longer)

By going with a 70-300 you gain 100mm of focal length, lose some weight, lose a stop or 2 on the long end (probably not a big deal outside) and from reports I've read, a bit of sharpness on the long end as well. Some say you're better off just cropping the difference if you're using one of the 70-200 lenses.

Grace98 Loc: Waterlooville, Hampshire - United Kingdom

I recently purchased the Nikkor 18–300MM F/3.5–6.3G ED VR which stays on my camera (D3300) all the time (I also have the 18-55). It is great because you have one lens which covers everything...very useful when on holiday and don't want to keep changing lenses and miss that important shot, especially if you're on safari. It is light in weight (Nikon also have a 5.6 but this is heavier and more expensive, at least in the UK) and I've taken shots at full zoom without needing a tripod. Hope this helps.

guyaurora Loc: Aurora, Ohio

Thanks for the information

AGO

Consider other brands besides Nikon. I have a Sigma 18-250 mm that I'm very happy with. Altogether I have 4 Nikon and 3 Sigma lenses and have found the Sigmas to equal the Nikon's in picture quality. I have been told that the Nikons have better build quality. That said, 2 of my Nikons have needed repairs after just normal use. My Sigmas have never needed repairs.

reprocc

It depends on the sensor in your camera. The 70-200 f2.8 is a FX lens not a DX. Your camera may be a DX sensor though. if your camera 15MP or greater and you want to take full advantage of it. Go with the 70-300 FX not DX.

jeffhacker Loc: Dallas, Texas

I just got the 18-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 which is always on my D7200. Have a f/1.4 50 mm prime as well but hardly ever use it. Love the big zoom; it is fast enough most of the time, and, while heavy, not that bad. If traveling, the less gear i have to carry the better :-)

BebuLamar

Is there a 70-200 DX lens?

reprocc

The 18-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 is a convenience lens. It sacrifices resolution(sharpness), speed and clarity for do it all capability. The wider the zoom range lower the quality of the image. For many people that's a good trade off. Primes give the highest optical quality but are the least convenient.
The Nikon 18-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 is rated at 8 megapixels vs 32 megapixels for the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 or 32 megapixels for the Nikon 200mm f/2. that's a whopping 4 times the sharpness and clarity of the image. That's a lot of sacrifice for convenience. If you are going to use that lens you mite have been better off with a point and shooter rather then an SLR. SEE:https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-F35-63G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D5300-versus-AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D810__1346_919_262_919_823_963

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The 70-200 is sharper than the 55-300, and probably sharper than the 70-300 - and it is one stop faster, focuses faster, and is a better all-around lens. I would not trade down to the 55-300 or the 70-300 - neither of which are stellar at 300mm.

reprocc

I have to agree with Gene51 and GoofyNewfie
The 70-200 f/2.8 is a lot sharper than the 55-300, and probably sharper than the 70-300 - and it is one stop faster, focuses faster, and is a better all-around lens. I would not trade down to the 55-300 or the 70-300 - neither of which are stellar at 300mm. If you have a 70-200 f/2.8 hang on to it, especially if you have a high res FX body.By going with a 70-300 you gain 100mm of focal length, lose some weight, lose a stop or 2 on the long end (probably not a big deal outside) and from reports I've read, a bit of sharpness on the long end as well. Some say you're better off just cropping the difference if you're using one of the 70-200 lenses.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You are misunderstanding the nature of DXO Mark's rating system. It is all relative to the body you are evaluating. The 18-300 will appear to test better on a lower resolution camera like a 12 mp D300 (6 P-MP) than it would on a higher resolution camera like a 24mp D3400 (9 P-MP). The D300 resolution of 12 mp compares to the P-MP of the 18-300 on that body where you would get a rating of 50% of the resolution of a "perfect" lens. With the D3400 which has 24mp, the P-MP of the 18-300 is 9, or 37% of the resolution of a "perfect" lens. The key to understanding DXO Mark is that 1)it is not meant to be used to compare different lenses irrespective of the camera body, and 2)the concept of the perfect lens, which is a lens that would provide 100% of the resolution of the camera.

the 85mm F1.4 will acheive a 10 P-MP rating on a D300, but will go to 16 P-MP on a D3400. It is not "sharper" or "clearer" on the higher mp body, and in fact, on a 12 mp body, it is 80% as sharp as the "perfect" lens, but the 24 mp resolution of the D3400 shows that there is some room to improve on the optics.

The amazingly sharp Nikon 105mm F1.4 gets a 33 P-MP rating on a 36.3 mp D810, but only a 10 P-MP on a 12 mp D3S. Does this mean that the lens is somehow less sharp or clear on the D3S? Nope. It does mean that it is very close to being a perfect lens on the D3S, but even a better match for the higher resolution D810 with a rating that is 90% of what a perfect lens would get.

DXO Mark requires some study and understanding.

This explains it all:

https://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores
https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/DxOMark-Score

And it is best to ignore the Northrup videos - they don't make any sense at all and just serve to confuse everything.