I want a lens with a little more reach,j just for things like birds so I don't need one of the more expensive lenses. What is the quality difference between th 55-300 and 70-300 VR lenses? Is one better than the other? Any opinions? Thanks
I can't give any input on the 55-300 as i shoot an FX. That said, assuming you are using a DX you will get an effective reach of 105mm-450mm with the 70-300 as it is a FX lenses. This is caused by the 1.5 crop factor when using a FX lenses on a DX body. If weight is a concern, the 70-300 weighs half a pound more. The additional reach may be what you are looking for.
The "reach" of the 55-500 will be the same on the long end. Even though it is a DX lens, the focal length is in 35mm equivalents. So the 55-300 is like a 82-450.
I've never used the 55-300, but I can tell you from experience that the 70-300 VR Nikkor is a very good lens (the non-VR version is not so hot). You could also consider the Tamron 70-300mm SP VC, which is equal to the Nikkor.
Thank you for the help. It sounds like the 70-300 will be great. I hadn't thought about the weight but since I will mainly use it in my yard it shouldn't be a problem. I didnt think to lookmat tamron, ill check into that too. Thanks for the input.
Thu 04-Apr-13 02:53 AM | edited Thu 04-Apr-13 02:53 AM by four eighty sparky
>I can't give any input on the 55-300 as i shoot an FX. That >said, assuming you are using a DX you will get an effective >reach of 105mm-450mm with the 70-300 as it is a FX lenses. >This is caused by the 1.5 crop factor when using a FX lenses >on a DX body. If weight is a concern, the 70-300 weighs half a >pound more. The additional reach may be what you are looking >for.
Technically, a DX lens that is 70-300mm will be the same as an FX lens that's 70-300 on a DX body.
I hate when people ask me what I see myself doing in 5 years...... I don't have 2020 vision!
Not much different from each other. The 55-300 is cheaper and is designed for the DX cameras. The other is designed for FX cameras. If you move to a FX camera in the future the 70-300 will cover the whole sensor where the other won't. But if you intend to stick with DX cameras then the 55-300 is a nice bargain.
You should consider all the advice so far. I had the 70-300VR and it was great. But I sold it when I got my 28-300VR. Then, when I got my V1, I picked up a 55-300VR to use on it since it has virtually no focus breathing (the 70-300 did and so does the 28-300)and I got it for $220 refurbed....giving me 810mm on the V1.
It does a great job on the V1 and I see no difference with the V1 vs the D90 I had before my D800. A little shorter and lighter than than the 70-300VR... and on cropped sensors the IQ is virtually identical. AF is a little slower but not really an issue.....may be on BIF shots though.
Dan (Nikon D800,V2,Sony HX400V,Lumix ZS40) "I don't read, I just look at pictures" - Andy Warhol
I don't have the 70-300, but I do take my 55-300 on holidays with me as a lighter weight alternative to my 80-200 2.8 AF-s & 1.7TC on my D7000. So long as you have a bit of light around, it focusses reasonably well, is pretty cheap and along with the 1.8 35mm prime, might be all you need. Here's a few examples of it at 300mm with static objects.