nikon 55-300 vr v 70-300 vr

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAC
  • Start date Start date

GAC

GAC

GAC

Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
4,688
well not even had the 5100 a week and im torturing myself with lenses.

basicaly looking at a 300mm tele for shooting sports (american football) and wildlife here in the middle of nowhere.

i had a read on ken rockwells site and he says the 70-300 has better focusing over the 55-300 hence im looking at a fx lens, rather not pay twice for when i hopeully go full frame one day :)

just wondering if anyones had any experience of the difference at all ?
 
The 70-300 Nikkor is a cracking lens had one for a couple of years, just changed up to a Sigma 150-500 for the extra reach.

As for holding onto a lens for an fx body, if you going to be spend that much on a pro body your prolly going to be looking at faster constant apature zooms like the 70-200 f2.8 or a long prime.

Get what you need for now and then move up and on, lens sell pretty well second hand so as long as you look after it you won't lose a fortune when it come to selling it on (like I will be soon hopefully).
 
I went with the 70-300 some time ago and was in it's time my favourite lens by far, couple of photos for you to check out coupled with either a D3100 or a D300: Jet Provost Pilot Hawker Hurricane RAGE What You Lookin At.

I've recently upgraded to a Nikon 80-200 f2.8, these beasties not only weigh so much more but also take up a lot more space (it hurts my neck to wear and won't fit in my walkabout bag), but as Talon mentioned, you really want to invest more when you've got a pro (or almost pro) body. If you really honestly want to buy the best first time around then the Nikon 70-200 VR-II is the way forward, but at a smidge over £1600 it's not an option for most people. Take my advice, buy something good now, like the 70-300, and when you feel it's time to upgrade, sell on the lens. It might cost you slightly more overall as you're selling for less than you buy, but it's less of a payment in one go.
 
yeah the 70-200 would be a tad over the top :P

yeah the 70-300 is looking more and more the one to go with, as even if resell i should at least be able to shift it for some funds for something better.

still interested in anyone who;s used either the 55 or 70 with sports just to see how much difference there is between the two.
 
I've never used the 55-300 before, but the 70-300 was ok; autofocus was a bit slow and the slower aperture required good light (or high ISO) to get those really still shots. For the money I doubt you'll get better, the difference between using my 80-200 and the 70-300 is night and day, but then again, so is the price :D
 
yeah. had a friend say basicaly the same thing auramega, guess il just have to see how the funds are closer to the time when il be buying it.
 
Its a good lens. I have one sat in my bag that I keep thinking about selling as I have a 70-200 2.8. But I keep thinking that the 70-300 would be so much easier to take away on holiday. So Have decided to let it gather dust (not really) in my bag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom