Choosing between the 55-300vr and the 70-300vr is not as easy as it first seems.

I've been doing quite a bit of research into a 300mm tele zoom for my D5100 and discovered a few interesting aspects to the decision that don't seem to come up in discussion here very often.

At first glance the 70-300vr appears to be the obvious choice (finances permitting) but when you start to directly compare them on all their features/potential uses it gets a little more interesting.

Direct image quality comparison is surprisingly close, the 55-300 is actually a very good lens optically, often being a direct match to the 70-300vr at several focal lengths and the same aperture. It also appears to be a little better than the 55-200vr in the overlapping range, but not wide open, in saying this, the 55-300vr is often best at f8 while the 55-200 is at it's best at f11 which I put as a win to the 55-300.

But here's where I see the real 'practical' advantage to the 55-300vr.

As an all purpose telephoto, the 55-300vr actually seems to offer a great deal more than first meets the eye for certain shooting styles.

It appears to be hands down the best 'lower cost' tele macro lens on a DX, it has 9 rounded aperture blades giving very good background de-focus, and it has the best magnification ratio out of the 70-300vr, 55-200vr (significantly better) and the Tamron 70-300vc.

For a good all purpose 'walk around' telephoto for tele-macro, landscapes and the odd bird in good light, the 55-300vr is starting to sound like a compelling option.

I'd be really interested in hearing what others think, I would love to see some tele-macro shots with this lens if anyone is keen to share them.

Cheers.