Help with Nikon 300mm lenses

[JC522]

I picked up a Nikon D3100 with the kit lens and I'm learning a lot but I've realized the limitations of the zoom on the lens. (i.e) when trying to shoot the moon last night.

I have it narrowed down to 2 lenses:

Nikkor AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR II ($329.95)
or
Nikkor AF-S 70-300 mm F4.5-5.6 VR ($439.95)

I read some reviews and some stated that the auto focus on the 70-300mm was a bit faster which would mean better for sports. Other than that can anyone tell me the main difference between them? I'm looking for mostly a walk around lens that can compliment my kit lens. I'm new to photography so any input would be greatly apprecited. Thanks

[Go4Long]

I will say that shooting indoor sports with either is going to be a pain...outdoor sports you'll be ok.

The 70-300 is a remarkably good lens for the price, but I have no experience at all with the new 55-300 so I really can't offer you any valuable opinion other than that the 55-300 pairs up better with the 18-55

[Mitsu3000gt]

The 70-300VR is a better lens. It focuses faster, and it has a true AF-S motor in it instead of the cheaper micro motors. Another difference there being you can override the AF with MF at anytime on the 70-300 but not the 55-300.

Both lenses are quite slow at f5.6 on the long end. You won't be shooting any indoor/low light action with either lens. Anything in good light (outdoors) will be just fine.

If you end up keeping this lens for a long time and eventually upgrade to full frame, the 70-300VR is compatible and the 55-300VR is not. That isn't an issue right now though.

The 70-300VR is made in Thailand, the 55-300VR is made in China, if you care.

The 70-300VR is built better, but is slightly larger & heavier. Considering the minimal price difference ($100) IMO the 70-300VR is the easy choice. If the price difference was bigger it would be a different story. The 70-300VR is one of the best bang for the buck lenses Nikon makes at any price.

Anyways congrats on your new camera, and feel free to post here or PM if you have any questions at all.

[blitz]

Take into consideration the physical size of the lenses too. I haven't seen the 55-300 in person, but it's probalby a fair bit smaller and lighter than the 70-300mm.

[Mitsu3000gt]

The 70-300VR is 0.8" longer and 195g heavier. Width is within a few mm of one another. IMO not a significant difference unless you value size over all else.

[Go4Long]

sure...get all technical on us :-P
man this board is way less fun without Kevin and Dave

[JC522]

Longest city walk with my camera I've done was an hour and a half. I'm pretty sure I should be okay with size and weight

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Go4Long
sure...get all technical on us :-P
man this board is way less fun without Kevin and Dave

Haha everyone is scared to do anything now. I didn't have a problem with either of those guys. Kevin was very knowledgeable and Dave was a source of drama/entertainment. I've definitely noticed it's a lot quieter around here though.

[Go4Long]

yup...it's amazing how a little bit of drama could bring up the post count of a forum.

and Kevin definitely knew his stuff, although admittedly didn't acknowledge the merits of anything other than the top of the line.

[JC522]

I found an open box of the 70-300mm and I almost bought it today but I'm kind of iffy on why someone returned it. Maybe it was a bad lens? But I also found the sigma 70-300mm lens. How does this compare? Will the autofocus work on my D3100?

lens:
http://www.thecamerastore.com/produc...ro-nikon-mount

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by JC522
I found an open box of the 70-300mm and I almost bought it today but I'm kind of iffy on why someone returned it. Maybe it was a bad lens? But I also found the sigma 70-300mm lens. How does this compare? Will the autofocus work on my D3100?

lens:
http://www.thecamerastore.com/produc...ro-nikon-mount

The sigma will not AF on your D3100.

Open box stuff can be fine if you test it out and you're happy with it.

Find yourself a Nikon 70-300VR. It's only slightly more expensive and a WAY WAY better lens. It's probably one of the best best bang for the buck lenses in Nikon's entire lineup.

[ex1z7]

+another 1 for the 70-300vr, I miss mine after selling it .. Never picked it up after buying a 70-200 2.8 but still wish I had it for light travel or for hiking around with it.. the 55-300 feels cheap and blegh..

[Xtrema]

Also have 70-300. Had no intention of buying it but found it cheap openbox @ Futureshop for like $300ish. Nothing wrong optically, just a little scratch on the barrel.

It really sucks indoor or at night on anything that moves. Sky is the limit when it comes to lens and indoor sport. The most fun I had with it was spying on all the buildings from the top of 30 Rock in NY or shooting DT from Nosehill.

That said, I had not use it much. My 18-105 kit lens still my default lens.

[JC522]

they had a 70-300 nikkor open boxed at best buy but the guy couldn't find it and I didn't wanna go home empty handed so I went to futureshop and the guy price matched the 55-300 with tcs's and beat it by 10%. Hope it works out great

[JC522]

playing around with it in my house and in some places where I have incandescent light bulbs put in the lens won't focus. Is that just cause it's too dark?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by JC522
playing around with it in my house and in some places where I have incandescent light bulbs put in the lens won't focus. Is that just cause it's too dark?

Yup, probably. That lens is f5.6 on the long end, and still pretty slow at 55mm, so indoors it will probably hunt a bit. Take it outside tomorrow when it's sunny and you'll see an improvement. The more light that can hit the AF sensors in the camera, the better an lens will focus.

[muse017]

how about tamron 70-300mm VC USD?
I've read numerous reviews saying good things about this lens.
I believe it's cheaper than Nikon 70-300mm vr and optically superior than the Nikon from 200mm on. It's also got USD motor which means it can be used on any Nikon bodys.
I've used Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 before and I must say it very sharp even at wide open from any range.

[Go4Long]

the tamron 70-300 is indeed getting good reviews...the 70-200 gets good reviews FOR THE MONEY...when compared to the nikon equivelant it scores very poorly.

The 70-300 tamron though is definitely worth looking at.

[muse017]

Originally posted by Go4Long
the tamron 70-300 is indeed getting good reviews...the 70-200 gets good reviews FOR THE MONEY...when compared to the nikon equivelant it scores very poorly.

The 70-300 tamron though is definitely worth looking at.

Agreed. Indeed Nikon 70-200mm v2 is a monster. Pentax doesn't even have an option for 70-200mm so I bought one instead of Sigma. Again OP, I'd definitely look into Tamron 70-300mm.

[Mitsu3000gt]

The Tamron 70-300 VC seems to be a good lens. The Nikon 70-300VR I used to have was surprisingly sharp wide open at 300mm, and from all the samples I've seen the Tamron doesn't look any better. Good for the money I'm sure, just like the Nikon.

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 isn't even in the same general league as the Nikon 70-200 VRII. It also focuses unbelievably slow with it's cheap micro motor. It's also less than half the price, so nobody should be expecting it to even compare.