Telephoto lens for D3300: AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II or AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR

[indie4ever]

Dear members,

I am planning to purchase a Nikon D3300 under the festive offer here in India, i.e., the D3300 camera bundled with the D-Zoom kit lens combination of the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, with either one of the following two lenses
AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II
or
AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product/digital-slr-cameras/d3300

I am a beginner, and mostly intend to shoot people, portraits, school and family functions (like weddings, birthdays, etc.), nature (especially macros of flowers, birds perched on trees, etc.), architecture/monuments and landscapes.

Given the above, I request you to please let me decide which of the above two lenses would better suit my requirements - the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II or AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR, to go with the D3300 and the other lens bundled with the kit (i.e., the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR).

Thanks.

 

[romfordbluenose]

Birds need the longest lens you can afford so the 70-300.

 

[indie4ever]

Birds need the longest lens you can afford so the 70-300.

Thanks for the suggestion. However, please explain if the following observations and opinions of the various members on dpreview forums do stack up against the Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR (when compared with or pitted against the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II) as a combo kit lens, to go along with the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, for the Nikon D3300.

At https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4047440 : blueboxdoctor: "...has a somewhat more limiting f stop"

Jeffry Z: "...lighter and slower when you are zoomed all of the way out- you are at f/6.3 instead of f/5.6 so you will be wanting to use it in good light."

Shunda77: "No, I am saying that the AF system always operates/acquires focus with the lens wide open at every focal length, if it is limited to F6.3 at the long end, the focus system does not work as well as it would if it were f5.6. This is going to be an even greater issue on camera bodies with less sophisticated AF systems like the D3300."

dwa1: "Way too many copies of the current 70-300 VR get soft over 220mm. f I had to do it all over again, I would have purchased the DX 55-300 VR (even though the AF is a little slower). That 55mm on the wide end could come in handy more than you might think."

Tomi: "The new 70-300 have a .22 reproduction ratio with a smaller minimum focus distance, what that means is that even when the 70-300 can get closer than the 55-300, it still needs larger objects to fill the sensor.

....The problem is really serious on the new 70-300 DX, considering that they have the same minimum focus distance, but lower reproduction ratio than the 55- 200 VR II; so the lens is probably 300mm at infinity, but is less than the 200 of the 55-200 at close distance."

At https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4033876 : André BARELIER: "But I don't expect better sharpness: with 6.3 at the long end (and maybe even before 300 mm) this lens is probably an entry level one."

At https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4060823#forum-post-58432523 : nnickn: "This is an F6.3 lens at the long end, so it isn't exactly easy to get a quick shutter unless the lens is outside on a sunny day."

At https://www.dpreview.com/news/05562...6g-and-70-300mm-f4-5-6-3g-ed-with-vr-variants : RedFox88: "No matter what aperture you use for the photo, autofocus is at f/6.3 at the long end meaning slower and less accurate focusing!"

Josh152: "At 300mm the new Nikon will have to AF at f/6.3. What effect if any this will have on the AF speed and accuracy remains to be seen but generally speaking more light means the AF works better."

pixtorial: "Nikon revamping entry-level DX lenses that were fine. The 70-300 makes no sense, you're losing an entire stop on the long end. These are pointless, give us some real DX glass."

moawkwrd: "Now they can spend 10 minutes trying to get a single decent shot at 300mm F6.3."

tsk1979: "70-300 F3.5-5.6 lenses are fairly compact. What's this new obsession with F6.3"

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1275036- REG/nikon_20062_afp_dx_nikkor_70_300mm.html : robjan245: "No Better than the 55-300. I was very disappointed in this lens. Focusing speed is no better than my 55-300 and pictures at 250-300 are very soft. I'm returning this lens."

Of couse, it's an entry level lens, no doubt. But, are the above factors a huge dampener as far as my requirements are concerned? Please clarify.

Regards.

 

[romfordbluenose]

You have picked up a lot of negative comments about 70-300 lens In general and a few about the new DX 70-300. The main difference between a DX lens and an FX lens is size weight and cost which are all positives which you have either ignored or failed to pick up.

I am not going to defend or support the comments except to say I have been using the Nikon 70-300 VR lens for a long while now and am happy with what it gives me. I of course do not have the new DX version of the lens.

If you want to overcome these comments then buy the 70-200 f4 VR from Nikon. It costs a lot more, weighs a lot more but still won't really be long enough for birds in trees, but it is sharper wide open and will isolate subjects when taking portraits.

As an aside the new Tamron 70-300 FX lens is supposedly sharper over the 240mm to 30mm range than the current Nikon VR when used wide open.

Perhaps you should consider the 55-200 plus the 300mm f4 prime plus a tele converter for birds. Of course this costs a lot lot more.

 

[indie4ever]

You have picked up a lot of negative comments about 70-300 lens In general and a few about the new DX 70-300. The main difference between a DX lens and an FX lens is size weight and cost which are all positives which you have either ignored or failed to pick up.

I am not going to defend or support the comments except to say I have been using the Nikon 70-300 VR lens for a long while now and am happy with what it gives me. I of course do not have the new DX version of the lens.

If you want to overcome these comments then buy the 70-200 f4 VR from Nikon. It costs a lot more, weighs a lot more but still won't really be long enough for birds in trees, but it is sharper wide open and will isolate subjects when taking portraits.

As an aside the new Tamron 70-300 FX lens is supposedly sharper over the 240mm to 30mm range than the current Nikon VR when used wide open.

Perhaps you should consider the 55-200 plus the 300mm f4 prime plus a tele converter for birds. Of course this costs a lot lot more.

Thanks again, dear romfordbluenose, for the exhaustive clarification. I respect your advice as you're a senior member. As stated, you haven't used (or "hands-on" tested) the newly-launched Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR. Have you had any chance to test or handle the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II in the past, howsoever briefly?

My only choice - in view of budgetary constraints - is between the Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR and the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II - as a combo kit lens, to go along with the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, for the Nikon D3300.

So, looks like it's going to be I would be sitting on the horns of this dilemma, until someone who has used or tested both the AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR and the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II resolves the issue, once for all. And this looks very unlikely! Or else, may be, I should take the plunge and just choose one of them!

 

[David Lal]

Birds need the longest lens you can afford so the 70-300.

.. carrion crows which can be photographed dramatically with a Nikon 18-35mm towards the short end:

D70; Nik 18-35mm and SB800

In fact, they really like short glass

D70; Nik 50/F1.8

 

[romfordbluenose]

Great shots but they weren't in trees.

 

[mrbr]

You have picked up a lot of negative comments about 70-300 lens In general and a few about the new DX 70-300. The main difference between a DX lens and an FX lens is size weight and cost which are all positives which you have either ignored or failed to pick up.

I am not going to defend or support the comments except to say I have been using the Nikon 70-300 VR lens for a long while now and am happy with what it gives me. I of course do not have the new DX version of the lens.

If you want to overcome these comments then buy the 70-200 f4 VR from Nikon. It costs a lot more, weighs a lot more but still won't really be long enough for birds in trees, but it is sharper wide open and will isolate subjects when taking portraits.

As an aside the new Tamron 70-300 FX lens is supposedly sharper over the 240mm to 30mm range than the current Nikon VR when used wide open.

Perhaps you should consider the 55-200 plus the 300mm f4 prime plus a tele converter for birds. Of course this costs a lot lot more.

Thanks again, dear romfordbluenose, for the exhaustive clarification. I respect your advice as you're a senior member. As stated, you haven't used (or "hands-on" tested) the newly-launched Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR. Have you had any chance to test or handle the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II in the past, howsoever briefly?

My only choice - in view of budgetary constraints - is between the Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR and the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II - as a combo kit lens, to go along with the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, for the Nikon D3300.

So, looks like it's going to be I would be sitting on the horns of this dilemma, until someone who has used or tested both the AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR and the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II resolves the issue, once for all. And this looks very unlikely! Or else, may be, I should take the plunge and just choose one of them!

You are lucky : Thom Hogan just published a positive review for the new nikon 70-300 dx lens, see http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...-lens-reviews/nikon-70-300mm-f45-63-af-p.html

For a D3300 you will need the latest firmware for compatibility reasons.


Greetings,
Marc

 

[romfordbluenose]

I have used the 55-200 but only briefly as it was my daughters boyfriends first telephoto on a D5100. It worked OK and took good photos but I never spent any time really testing it at length.

You could consider buying the 55-200 on eBay as there are quite a few available second hand and if you find its not to your liking you can resell it and get most of your money back.

Or even better take your camera into a camera shop and try them both out. I am afraid I can't answer your question though as I haven't used either really.

Perhaps someone else can give you a good comparison.

 

[Shunda77]

I am a beginner, and mostly intend to shoot people, portraits, school and family functions (like weddings, birthdays, etc.), nature (especially macros of flowers, birds perched on trees, etc.), architecture/monuments and landscapes.

Unfortunately, the best kit lens for this would actually be the 55-300vr and not the two you have mentioned.

The 55-300vr was often bundled with the D3300, so it may be possible to find it somewhere.

It really is the best choice for the subject matter you listed if you are on a budget.

 

[David Lal]

Great shots but they weren't in trees.

No trees mentioned in your post initially but here you go:

D70; Sigma 105mm; European robin

See, it can still be done with a short (ish) lens providing the tree is not too tall or you can climb with a camera.

;-)

 

[indie4ever]

You have picked up a lot of negative comments about 70-300 lens In general and a few about the new DX 70-300. The main difference between a DX lens and an FX lens is size weight and cost which are all positives which you have either ignored or failed to pick up.

I am not going to defend or support the comments except to say I have been using the Nikon 70-300 VR lens for a long while now and am happy with what it gives me. I of course do not have the new DX version of the lens.

If you want to overcome these comments then buy the 70-200 f4 VR from Nikon. It costs a lot more, weighs a lot more but still won't really be long enough for birds in trees, but it is sharper wide open and will isolate subjects when taking portraits.

As an aside the new Tamron 70-300 FX lens is supposedly sharper over the 240mm to 30mm range than the current Nikon VR when used wide open.

Perhaps you should consider the 55-200 plus the 300mm f4 prime plus a tele converter for birds. Of course this costs a lot lot more.

Thanks again, dear romfordbluenose, for the exhaustive clarification. I respect your advice as you're a senior member. As stated, you haven't used (or "hands-on" tested) the newly-launched Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR. Have you had any chance to test or handle the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II in the past, howsoever briefly?

My only choice - in view of budgetary constraints - is between the Nikon AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR and the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II - as a combo kit lens, to go along with the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, for the Nikon D3300.

So, looks like it's going to be I would be sitting on the horns of this dilemma, until someone who has used or tested both the AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR and the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II resolves the issue, once for all. And this looks very unlikely! Or else, may be, I should take the plunge and just choose one of them!

You are lucky : Thom Hogan just published a positive review for the new nikon 70-300 dx lens, see http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...-lens-reviews/nikon-70-300mm-f45-63-af-p.html

For a D3300 you will need the latest firmware for compatibility reasons.

Greetings,
Marc

Thanks, Marc. I have gone through the review by Thom Hogan. He says that "the minimum focus is about 43” (1.1m), which results in an okay-but-not-macro 1:4.6 maximum reproduction ratio."

Now, since macros are very important to me, would this issue be a huge put-off, then?!

He also was none-too-happy with the f/6.3 at 300mm (esp. in dim light). What's your take on this issue? Please advise.

Regards

 

[indie4ever]

I have used the 55-200 but only briefly as it was my daughters boyfriends first telephoto on a D5100. It worked OK and took good photos but I never spent any time really testing it at length.

You could consider buying the 55-200 on eBay as there are quite a few available second hand and if you find its not to your liking you can resell it and get most of your money back.

Or even better take your camera into a camera shop and try them both out. I am afraid I can't answer your question though as I haven't used either really.

Perhaps someone else can give you a good comparison.

Thank you, once again, for your kind input. Appreciate the help greatly. Warm regards.

 

[indie4ever]

I am a beginner, and mostly intend to shoot people, portraits, school and family functions (like weddings, birthdays, etc.), nature (especially macros of flowers, birds perched on trees, etc.), architecture/monuments and landscapes.

Unfortunately, the best kit lens for this would actually be the 55-300vr and not the two you have mentioned.

The 55-300vr was often bundled with the D3300, so it may be possible to find it somewhere.

It really is the best choice for the subject matter you listed if you are on a budget.

Thanks, Shunda77, for the suggeston. The authorized Nikon dealer here, as luck would have it, has only the two lenses I had mentioned as kits/bundles to go along with the D3300. Regards.

 

[admwright]

Thanks, Marc. I have gone through the review by Thom Hogan. He says that "the minimum focus is about 43” (1.1m), which results in an okay-but-not-macro 1:4.6 maximum reproduction ratio."

Now, since macros are very important to me, would this issue be a huge put-off, then?!

He also was none-too-happy with the f/6.3 at 300mm (esp. in dim light). What's your take on this issue? Please advise.

Regards

If macro is important to you then these consumer telephoto lens are not the right solution. However, they are a reasonable solution for "fairly close" work and are fine for flowers, large insects, etc.

It would be nice if the f-stop was larger at the 300mm end, but if you have good light then this is less of an issue.

 

[indie4ever]

Thanks, Marc. I have gone through the review by Thom Hogan. He says that "the minimum focus is about 43” (1.1m), which results in an okay-but-not-macro 1:4.6 maximum reproduction ratio."

Now, since macros are very important to me, would this issue be a huge put-off, then?!

He also was none-too-happy with the f/6.3 at 300mm (esp. in dim light). What's your take on this issue? Please advise.

Regards

If macro is important to you then these consumer telephoto lens are not the right solution. However, they are a reasonable solution for "fairly close" work and are fine for flowers, large insects, etc.

It would be nice if the f-stop was larger at the 300mm end, but if you have good light then this is less of an issue.

--
All the best
Andrew W.

Many thanks, Andrew, for the advice. Guess I should go in for the Nikkor AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VRII, in the end! What would have been the rationale for the Nikon optical engineers to set the f/6.3 at the long end (300mm) on the AF-P DX 70-300 f/4.5-6.3G ED VR - could it have been cost-cutting, or something else?

Regards.

 

[tennanah184187]

You might consider the Tamron 70-300 VC USD XLD. Supposedly focuses quicker than the Nikon 55-300 and is faster at 5.6 vs 6.3 at the long end.

 

[indie4ever]

You might consider the Tamron 70-300 VC USD XLD. Supposedly focuses quicker than the Nikon 55-300 and is faster at 5.6 vs 6.3 at the long end.

 

[mrbr]

You might consider the Tamron 70-300 VC USD XLD. Supposedly focuses quicker than the Nikon 55-300 and is faster at 5.6 vs 6.3 at the long end.

--
Ed

Thanks, tennanah.

But, the Nikon kit-bundle Festive Offer (here in India) for the D3300 is very tempting for my limited budget. So, it's a very narrow, limited choice between the AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR Kit Lens and the AF-S Nikkor DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VRII Kit Lens (to go along with the D3300 and the AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR).

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product/digital-slr-cameras/d3300

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/events_and_promotions/double-zoom-kit-offer

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/events_and_promotions/consumer-offer-2016

Regards.

Hi,

I would prefer the new 70-300 for its fast focussing and better IQ over the 55-200 VRII , because in the overlapping range the new 70-300 lens is better then the 55-200 VRII ( according to Thom Hogan ).

The new 70-300 lens has f/5.3 at 200mm compared to f5.6 for the 55-200mm lens !!

Greetings,
Marc

 

[indie4ever]

You might consider the Tamron 70-300 VC USD XLD. Supposedly focuses quicker than the Nikon 55-300 and is faster at 5.6 vs 6.3 at the long end.

--
Ed

Thanks, tennanah.

But, the Nikon kit-bundle Festive Offer (here in India) for the D3300 is very tempting for my limited budget. So, it's a very narrow, limited choice between the AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR Kit Lens and the AF-S Nikkor DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VRII Kit Lens (to go along with the D3300 and the AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR).

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/product/digital-slr-cameras/d3300

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/events_and_promotions/double-zoom-kit-offer

http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/about/events_and_promotions/consumer-offer-2016

Regards.

Hi,

I would prefer the new 70-300 for its fast focussing and better IQ over the 55-200 VRII , because in the overlapping range the new 70-300 lens is better then the 55-200 VRII ( according to Thom Hogan ).

The new 70-300 lens has f/5.3 at 200mm compared to f5.6 for the 55-200mm lens !!

Greetings,
Marc

Yes, Marc! I noticed from Thom's review that the new 70-300 (AF-P) has f/2.3 at 200m!! I'm veering more and more towards the 70-300 at this very moment. Thanks and regards.