Nikkor 55-300 mm vs nikkor Nikkor 70-300 mm

[Amatuer MD]

Dear all,

I am looking for a telephoto zoom lens for my trip to Western Ghats in India.

I have two options to chose from.

1. Nikon Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR

2. Nikon Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

or Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon-f

I don't know if I am totally right in this context, but since 55-300mm is DX lens and 70-300mm is FX lens, I'd get better / actual focal length on shorter zoom length with 55-300mm, while 70-300 mm will act as 105-450mm on my DX body. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am inclining more towards 55-300 mm but what concerns me is its auto-focus is slower than 70-300mm. What is the difference between autofocus of 55-300 and 70-300 mm?? Does this difference in autofocus really affect the image quality?? Out of these two lens, which is sharper at longer zoom length??

Please help me to clear my confusion.

Best Regards

~ MD

 

[afoton]

I don't know if I am totally right in this context, but since 55-300mm is DX lens and 70-300mm is FX lens, I'd get better / actual focal length on shorter zoom length with 55-300mm, while 70-300 mm will act as 105-450mm on my DX body. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. 55-300mm will act as 55-300mm and 70-300mm will act as 70-300mm. The only difference between DX and FX lens, is that DX-lens will not lighten the whole FX sensor. But as long you are using a DX-camera, you will not see any difference.

 

[The Doctor 46]

Actually, I am pretty sure you are right. The 70-300 will give you an effective field of view similar to 105-450.

I used to own the 55-300 and didn't like it at all. I found the AF to be too slow for my needs (motorsport and airshows) and the images were a bit soft, although that could well have been user error. A friend of mine has the 70-300 and it does produce some very nice images throughout most of the zoom range but it does get a little bit soft towards the long end.

I guess you really need to try and understand exactly what images you want from the lens. Will you be bothered by the gap in focal range or will you mostly be using the long end?

 

[Jay OC]

The70-300 will effectively act as a 105 - 450. But you will loose 1/3 of the FOV. Check the Nikon website and review thespecs for the lens on a DX body.



I have the 55-300. I use it for wildlife shots. So focusing speed is not as much an issue for me. I have gotten some good shots with the lens. The only time I had trouble with my D7000 / 55-300 set up was when we were in Grand Tetons National Park. There was some elk in the bushes at a distance and the camera had trouble focusing on the animal.

 

[TinyTrains]

I was looking at both of these plus the Tamaron, and bought the Nikkor 70-300 VR. The reviews of the DX 55-300 was that the pictures were fine, but the focus is slower and the controls feel cheap compared to the full frame lenses. Of course that is because it costs $189 more.

http://www.onemansanthology.com/blog/nikon-70-300mm-vr-vs-55-300mm-vr/

For me, if I am going to spend this much I want it to work on my future cameras which may be full frame, so I ruled out the DX.

So that leaves the debate between the Tamaron and the Nikkor 70+300s. The Tammy they say better at 300, but the Nikkor does not look bad at all. I looked at hundreds of shots on Flikr and personally I could not see a difference. The Nikkor is said to focus faster and integrates with the camera better. And there is no guarantee that third party lenses will work on future cameras, although they almost always do. The Tamaron is a lot cheaper, has more VR range, and takes great pictures so it is really a toss-up. But if I all I had was $400, I would get the Tamaron 70-300 VC over the Nikkor 55-300 DX.

Oh, and since it has been rather confusing above, all 3 lenses give the same size image on DX camera at 300mm. That image will have the effective size of a 450mm on a full frame camera.

 

[GlennW]

Get the 55-300 or 55-200 if you have the 18-55 kit lens, with the 2 lens combo you van cover the range from 18 to 200 or 300. The difference is if you always swap lens at 55mm

Get 70-300 if you have 18-140 or 16-85. Now you have some overlap.

In build quality, 70-300 is the best of the 3 at the expense of price. size, weight. Your choice.

--
I Shoot RAW

 

[glo]

2. Nikon Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Of your choices, that's the one. It's the better lens.

glo

 

[Curtox]

2. Nikon Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Of your choices, that's the one. It's the better lens.

glo

The 70-300VR is indeed my choice, having owned the 55-300 previously. Though I've never used the Tamron, I have read it's the equal of the 70-300VR in most ways.

A side note about image quality, to be honest my copy of the 55-300 was quite sharp, and not bad at 300mm, and maybe sharper than my current 70-300VR, though the 70-300VR might have a little more contrast/pop, maybe.

As for the difference in AF speed, it's pretty huge. The 70-300VR is a breath of fresh air, and feels almost instantaneous compared to the 55-300. That said, depending on your usage needs, this may or may not be a big factor. For me, I primarily use this lens for outdoor sports, so the AF speed is absolutely the top priority, and makes a big difference.