Overview
The Nikon 55-300mm VR lens is a major update to the existing Nikon 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G ED VR lens that was released in 2007. Just like the 55-200mm VR, it is designed to be used with the Nikon 18-55mm DX VR kit lens to provide expanded focal range for telephoto shots. Nikon 55-300mm is currently the cheapest way to get to true 300mm focal length in Nikon’s current line of lenses, with a little more shorter range to work with than the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. It is an ideal lens to be used for family events and vacations to capture distant subjects, and the use of Vibration Reduction (VR) technology makes it easier to get sharp photographs at slower shutter speeds, especially when shooting at 300mm. Similar to the Nikon 28-300mm VR lens, the Nikon 55-300mm VR comes with two Extra-low Dispersion (ED) Elements, which due to less air bubbles and glass deformities within the glass elements help minimize chromatic aberration and deliver sharper images at large apertures. The Nikon 55-300mm VR lens is only designed to work on Nikon DX (cropped) sensors and has an equivalent field of view of approximately 82.5mm-450mm (in 35mm equivalent), which makes the lens particularly good for reaching distant subjects. Autofocus is practically silent, thanks to the Silent Wave Motor (AF-S) within the lens.
In this review, I will do my best to provide a thorough analysis of this lens, along with some image samples and comparisons against other Nikon professional telephoto lenses.
1) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Compact DX-format zoom lens with High Refractive Index lens element, ED glass and VR II image stabilization allows expanded photo and video opportunities that are designed to bring the action closer to the photographer.
- Nikon VR II Image Stabilization/Vibration Reduction, engineered specifically for each VR NIKKOR lens, enables handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible, assuring dramatically sharper still images and video capture.
- HRI (High Refractive Index) Lens Element is essential to keeping the lens compact while offering high contrast even at maximum aperture.
- Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
- The minimum focus distance is at 4.6 feet at all focal lengths.
- 5.5X Telephoto Zoom lens is ideal for capturing distant subjects at athletic events, family pictures, dramatic sunsets, travel and more. Angle of view is equivalent to a focal length of 82.5 to 450mm in FX/35mm format D-SLR.
- Tripod Detection Mode reduces vibration that may occur due to shutter release when mounted on a tripod.
- 2 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) Elements effectively minimize chromatic aberration, even at the widest aperture settings.
- Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduces flare.
- Rounded 9-Blade Diaphragm renders more natural appearance of out-of-focus image areas.
Technical Specifications:
- Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
- Focal Length Range: 55-300mm
- Zoom Ratio: 5.5x
- Maximum Aperture: f/4.5
- Minimum Aperture: f/22
- Format: DX
- Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 28°50′
- Minimum Angle of View (DX-format): 5°20′
- Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.28x
- Lens Elements: 17
- Lens Groups: 11
- High Refractive Index Elements: 1
- Compatible Format(s): DX, FX in DX Crop Mode
- VR (Vibration Reduction/Image Stabilization): Yes
- Diaphragm Blades: 9
- Distance Information: Yes
- ED Glass Elements: 2
- Super Integrated Coating: Yes
- Autofocus: Yes
- AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
- Minimum Focus Distance: 4.6 ft. (1.4m) throughout entire zoom range
- Focus Mode: Auto/Manual
- Filter Size: 58mm
- Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
- Dimensions (Approx.): 3.0×4.8 in. (Diameter x Length) 76.5x123mm (Diameter x Length)
- Weight (Approx.): 18.7 oz. (580g)
- Supplied Accessories: HB-57 Snap-on Type Lens Hood, LC-58 Snap-on Front Lens Cap, LF-4 Rear Lens Cap, CL-1020 Soft Lens Case
2) Lens handling and features
The Nikon 55-300mm VR is a plastic lens with a metal mount, which is easy to carry and handle due to its low weight. Although the lens has a total of 17 optical elements in 11 groups, it weighs only 580 grams. In comparison, the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens weighs 800 grams, while the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR lens weights 745 grams. Nikon was able to do this by using a high refractive index (HR) lens element (which allows using a single lens element instead of multiple elements made of standard glass), without compromising sharpness and image quality. The zoom ring is gigantic, occupying almost half of the lens barrel, which makes it easy to zoom in and out with your left hand, while holding the camera with your right hand. Compared to such lenses as 70-300mm VR, the 55-300mm does not have a manual focus override, which means that you have to first switch to “M” mode on the lens in order to be able to rotate the front of the lens barrel, where the focus ring is located. This is certainly a drawback, especially if you need to quickly switch from Autofocus to Manual focus (most current Nikon lenses have an “A/M” mode on the lens, which allows to override autofocus by simply rotating the focus ring). The focus ring is tiny compared to the zoom ring and is located in front of the lens, which is a smart move by Nikon – after-all, this lens is created for automatic focusing and the focus ring does not get nearly as much use as the zoom ring.
I really like the versatility of this lens – being able to shoot at 55mm all the way to 300mm is very nice, especially for wildlife photography. Unlike the new Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR or the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, this lens is not plagued with a “lens breathing” issue and 300mm on the long side is truly like 300mm, not shorter. Another important thing to note, is that the lens does extend pretty far when zoomed all the way in to 300mm. This is quite normal for this type of a lens and most other consumer zoom lenses also extend out when zoomed in. Zooming in/out was a little jerky and not very smooth on my lens sample, but it probably does get better overtime. The lens does not creep at all and I don’t think it will, even with heavy use in the future. The HB-57 lens hood is specifically engineered for this lens and it snaps on easily – I would leave it mounted on the lens to keep the front element protected against damage and flare/ghosting.
Since it is a variable aperture lens, the focal length on it changes as you zoom in from f/4.5 to f/5.6 on the long end:
- 55mm – f/4.5
- 105mm – f/4.8
- 135mm – f/4.8
- 200mm – f/5.0
- 300mm – f/5.6
3) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy
The lens focuses well when there is sufficient light and when shooting at shorter focal lengths below 200mm. As you get closer to 300mm and f/5.6, the AF accuracy starts to suffer a little, similar to what the 28-300mm does, but it is not bad. I had a few cases when the lens would not focus at all at 300mm, which I was able to address by pointing the lens to a different spot, then half-pressing the shutter or pressing the AF-ON button again. The AF performance is slow – it certainly felt slower than on the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. Subject tracking worked OK for the most part, occasionally producing out-of-focus images. Once I got used to how the lens autofocuses and learned how to operate it under various conditions, it certainly got easier to work with. Take a look at the following hawk shot that I captured at 300mm (100% crop):
Hawk,
The hawk was just cruising above me, so I did not have to track focus – the lens just acquired focus at once and I took a couple of images. I cropped the image in Lightroom and added some sharpness.
When focusing in low-light, you might notice the lens hunting, which is certainly annoying. Obviously, the 55-300 is not a good candidate for any kind of indoor/low-light photography, unless flashes are used.
4) Lens sharpness and contrast
When it comes to lens sharpness, the 55-300 performs very well between 55 to 135mm and starts losing just a touch of sharpness towards 300mm across the frame. The center is pretty sharp throughout the focal range, with the corners being slightly soft when shooting wide open. As you stop down the lens, both the center and the corners improve considerably, with f/8 being the sweet spot at short focal lengths and f/11 at the long focal lengths above 200mm. Check out the following image to see how sharp the lens can be:
Click here to download the full-size version of the file (7.7 MB).
As you can see, the lens is capable of producing great results when shot at f/8.0.
5) Vibration Reduction – VR II
The new Vibration Reduction (VR) system in this lens is superb and works great! I shot the 55-300mm hand-held most of the time and used a tripod only for lab and outdoor testing. Thanks to vibration reduction, I was able to shoot at slow shutter speeds and still get sharp images of non-moving subjects. VR can be turned on/off through a switch on the side of the lens. Compared to the 70-300mm VR lens, it has no VR modes like “Normal” and “Active”, which I personally do not miss, since I rarely change VR from Normal to Active. When shooting from a tripod, do not forget to turn VR off.
6) Bokeh
The quality of bokeh this lens produces is pretty good. It is not as good as what the Nikon 70-300mm VR and other exotic lenses such as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G can do, but still quite pleasing for a lens like this. Here is a bokeh comparison between the Nikon 55-300 and 28-300:
Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm Bokeh
Although the bokeh looks a little “edgy”, it is not as bad as the bokeh on the 28-300mm. The Nikon 28-300mm bokeh looks very dirty in comparison.
Here is another image sample showing soft and pleasing background rendering:
7) Vignetting
Vignetting is typically not a problem on telephoto lenses, however, the Nikon 55-300mm does have a significant amount of vignetting present past 135mm when shooting at the largest aperture. Stopping down the lens to f/8.0 completely gets rid of vignetting though, which is great. Here is an example of vignetting at f/5.0 @ 200mm (left) and at f/8.0 @ 200mm (right):
As you can see, the vignetting is clearly gone by f/8.0. The same thing happens when shooting at the longest focal length of 300mm.
8) Ghosting and Flare
Telephoto lenses are typically not designed to shoot against bright sources of light. While the Nikon 55-300mm seems to be able to handle ghosting and flare fairly well, I would be careful with putting the Sun into the frame – you might get some nasty ghosting and flare depending on the angle, position, etc. The images might appear “cloudy” if the sun reaches the front element of the lens, so I would just keep the supplied hood on at all times. Not only will the hood protect the lens, but it will also do what it is supposed to – which is block sun rays from reaching the front element. When shooting against other light sources in dim environments, I did not notice any considerable amount of ghosting/flare. If you are seeing too much flare and you are using a filter (clear, UV, etc.), try removing the filter to see if the effect goes away. If it does, then you have a low quality filter.
9) Chromatic Aberration
The Nikon 55-300mm VR has a very controlled amount of chromatic aberration (CA), due to the excellent ED glass elements used in this lens. I did not notice much CA at the short focal lengths (just a tad in the corners), but did get some at the long end between 200mm and 300mm across the frame. But this slight amount of CA is very easy to fix in Lightroom and Photoshop, so it is not even worth mentioning it- certainly very good for a consumer lens of this class. Stopping down the lens to f/8.0 almost completely eliminates visible aberration.
10) Distortion
Distortion is controlled well at the short focal lengths, with a very slight amount of barrel distortion at 55mm. As you get to 70mm, distortion completely disappears, reappearing as pincushion distortion at 105mm all the way to 300mm. Pincushion is moderate at the long ranges – here is an extreme example at 105mm with noticeable distortion:
Nikon 55-300mm Distortion
If distortion is an issue for you, you can easily fix it via Filter->Distort->Lens Correction filter in Adobe Photoshop or use the new “Lens Corrections” screen inside Lightroom’s Develop Module.
Sharpness Test
Sharpness Test
Some technical junk:
- White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 3500 Temp, +19 Tint in Lightroom
- ISO: 200
- EXIF information is preserved in the images
- Lens was mounted on Nikon D300 DX Camera and Gitzo tripod
- Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
- Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
- Long exposure NR: Off
- Image Format: RAW
- Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted (-.20 to +.033) to make sure that all images have the same brightness
- Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
- Testing was performed at f/4.5, f/5.6, f/8.0 and f/11.0 apertures
- Nothing was moved during testing
11) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 55mm Center Frame
Let’s take a look at the center at 55mm:
As you can see, the lens performs very well at all apertures when shooting at 55mm. The image wide open @ f/4.5 is just a tad softer than others, but almost unnoticeable, which is very good.
12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 55mm Corner Frame
What about the corners at 55mm? Let’s see how they compare at various apertures:
As expected, the extreme corners at the largest apertures do show some softness at 55mm. Stopping down the lens to f/8.0 does improve the situation considerably though.
13) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 70mm Center Frame
Here is how the center looks at 70mm:
Again, the center of the frame is sharp from f/5.6 to f/11.0 with a very slightly softer image at f/4.5.
The corners at 70mm look very similar to the 55mm crops posted above, with softer corners wide open getting pretty good by f/8.0.
14) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 105mm Center Frame
Let’s see what happens at 105mm:
Again, the sharpness is pretty good overall, but we are already seeing some loss of sharpness at the largest aperture and f/5.6. Stopping down the lens to f/8.0 and f/11.0 produces the best results.
15) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 105mm Corner Frame
And the corners at 105mm:
I’m surprised to see how well the lens does at 105mm – all corners look pretty sharp with no difference between the crops.
16) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 200mm Center Frame
Longer range at 200mm in the center:
At 200mm, the best performance is between f/8.0 and f/11.0, with the wide open and f/5.6 performance getting a little weaker, but still pretty good.
The corners are very similar to 105mm – consistently good images from f/5.6 to f/11.0.
17) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 300mm Center Frame
Since at 300mm the lens is at f/5.6, there are only three crops:
Again, the center looks very similar to 200mm, with slightly softer image at f/5.6 that gets sharper at f/8.0 and f/11.0.
18) Sharpness Test – Nikon 55-300mm @ 300mm Corner Frame
And corners at 300mm:
Corners look all the same to me in terms of sharpness, with a slight amount of visible purple fringing in the corners.
Overall, the lens sharpness performance is pretty good, with a slightly worse performance at larger apertures when shooting at long ranges above 105mm. The remedy is to stop down to f/8.0, which increases image sharpness.
Lens Comparisons
Compared to Nikon 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G
How does the Nikon 55-300mm VR compare to the older Nikon 55-200mm VR? Let’s take a look at direct comparisons between the two.
19) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 55-200mm @ 55mm Center Frame
The Nikon 55-200mm VR lens has a slight advantage over the 55-300mm at 55mm – it has a maximum aperture of f/4.0 versus f/4.5 (Left: 55-300mm, Right: 55-200mm):
However, as you can see, the 55-200mm is actually softer at maximum aperture. The sharpness difference is very minimal at f/5.6 and f/8.0 (below):
Both perform very similarly when stopped down to f/8.0.
20) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 55-200mm @ 55mm Corner Frame
Let’s see what happens in the corners (Left: 55-300mm, Right: 55-200mm):
Wide open, both lenses have an almost identical corner performance – I cannot see any difference between the two. The same is true when stopped down to f/8.0:
21) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 55-200mm @ 105mm Center Frame
At 105mm, both lenses are close in aperture, with the Nikon 55-300 @ f/4.8 (Left) and Nikon 55-200 @ f/4.5 (Right):
Again, both are quite good at maximum aperture, with the 55-300mm being a tad softer.
At f/8.0, the performance is almost identical.
22) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 55-200mm @ 105mm Corner Frame
Now here is where things start getting interesting for the 55-300mm – it performs sharper not only wide open, but also stopped down to f/8.0 in the corners:
23) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 55-200mm @ 200mm Center Frame
What about the long range @ 200mm?
Wide open, the Nikon 55-300mm is now at f/5.0, while the Nikon 55-200mm is at f/5.6. Sharpness-wise, both are almost identical, with the 55-300mm slightly outperforming the 55-200mm at f/5.6.
Both lenses perform about the same when stopped down.
When it comes to corner performance @ 200mm, the Nikon 55-300mm takes the lead just like in the 105mm corner test.
So, which one is sharper, the Nikon 55-300mm or the Nikon 55-200mm? As you can see from the above tests, both perform equally well, with the 55-300mm performing just a little better than the 55-200mm towards the longer range at 200mm. Overall, I would say the performance is almost identical, with small differences here and there. When it comes to distortion, CA and other lens characteristics, lenses are very comparable, with the 55-200 having a little more vignetting at 200mm than the 55-300. The obvious advantage the 55-300mm has over the 55-200mm, is focal length. Those 100mm play a big role when it comes to reaching distant subjects and without a doubt, the 55-300mm is a lot more useful than the 55-200mm.
If you are trying to decide between these two lenses, the choice is clear – the Nikon 55-300mm is a better lens, mainly because it can reach much further. Here is the difference between 200mm and 300mm focal lengths:
As you can see, the difference is significant.
Compared to Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
What about the new and versatile Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR? Let’s see how it compares against the Nikon 55-300mm.
24) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 70mm Center
Due to differences in field of view between the Nikon 55-300mm and Nikon 28-300mm, I had to adjust the focal length of the Nikon 55-300mm to match around 70mm of 28-300mm. Here are 100% crops from both lenses wide open and f/5.6 (Left: Nikon 55-300mm, Right: Nikon 28-300mm):
At both apertures, the Nikon 28-300mm is clearly taking the lead. When it comes to corners, the Nikon 55-300mm performs a little better at 70mm than the 28-300mm though.
25) Nikon 55-300mm vs Nikon 28-300mm @ 300mm Center
The most important test against the 28-300mm is to see how well the Nikon 55-300mm does at 300mm. But first, back to the field of view difference and focus breathing – at a distance of approximately 2.5 meters, the difference in focal length is huge. The below crops of the 55-300mm were shot @ 135mm. At this subject distance, I would say Nikon 55-300mm @ 150mm roughly yields the same field of view as the Nikon 28-300mm @ 300mm!
Considering the focus breathing issue, it is impossible to compare the Nikon 28-300mm to the Nikon 55-300mm @ 300mm while shooting a close subject. However, at around 150mm on the 55-300mm, the Nikon 28-300mm seems to be sharper.
Summary and Image Samples
26) Summary
Nikon released the new 55-300mm lens as an update to the existing 55-200mm lens and did a great job in keeping consistently good sharpness between 55mm and 200mm, with an added bonus of another 100mm for situations where additional reach is needed. Despite being a consumer zoom lens, the Nikon 55-300mm proved to be a great choice when it comes to optical performance, value and weight. It basically obsoletes the previous 55-200mm lens in all aspects and compares favorably against other similar lenses such as Nikon 70-300mm VR. While its focus speed and accuracy are not as good as on the Nikon 70-300mm or other pro-level lenses, it certainly does good enough of the job for capturing family pictures, events and travel at a very affordable price point. The slow autofocus performance and small maximum aperture are certainly not for low-light and fast-moving action photography, but if you learn how to focus with this lens, you will be able to capture great shots.
When compared to the Nikon 28-300mm lens, the Nikon 55-300mm can give a much longer range to work with, since the Nikon 28-300mm has a “lens breathing” design that brings down the effective focal length of the 28-300mm to approximately 130mm when shooting at minimum focus distance of 1.5 meters @ 300mm. There is a huge difference between 130mm and 300mm when it comes to field of view, and having a longer range is quite important while trying to fill the frame with a nearby subject. In terms of optical performance, the Nikon 28-300mm is a little sharper. Where I find the most value in this lens, is its portability. Hiking with heavy lenses is difficult and not always practical. The Nikon 55-300mm VR is very lightweight lens and can be easily carried around, especially if mounted on a compact DX body. Price, without a doubt, is another key factor – it only costs around $369, which is not a bad price for a lens like this.
Overall, I am impressed with this lens – it is fully capable of producing great pictures for those with tight budgets and who are planning to continue using DX cameras in the future.
27) Where to buy
The Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR lens is currently available at B&H Photo Video and other retailers. I always recommend buying photography gear from B&H, because they have the lowest prices and the best customer service when compared to other online and local retailers.
28) More Image Samples
All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
About Nasim Mansurov
Hi Nasim, Would it be fair to say that 70-300 vr is much sharper than 55-300 vr?
Amit, no, the sharpness is actually very comparable. Where the 70-300mm takes the lead is faster/more accurate focusing.
I purchased nikkor 55-200 VR in August 2007 for my D50 body. I was very satisfied with it’s sharpness at it’s 200mm tele end. It offered me some good photo of birds. For bird photography 200mm is not adequate. I used to crop the image by less than 1/2 of the diagonal length of the original image, but, still have full details and sharpness in the cropped image. So, by cropping the image I can get output like of 400mm lens from the 55-200 VR lens.
In July 2010 I purchased Nikkor 70-300 VR and expected to get similar clearity and sharpness at 300mm tele end. With out cropping the image is acceptably sharp. But, when cropped by 1/2 of the diagonal length, the image losses its sharpness. I purchased the 70-300 VR just before Nikon released their 55-300 VR. Now, I am very much confused, whether I spend a much more money behind a wrong lens. Whether 55-300VR provides better sharpness at 300mm than my 70-300VR. I am looking for side by side compare of the image quality of both the lens at their 300mm tele end.
Omio, thank you for your feedback!
I agree that 200mm is too short for most birds, but I would not necessarily say that cropping would get similar results as a 400mm lens… Sharpness depends on many factors, including AF performance, but in your case you might have a bad sample of the 70-300mm. I seriously doubt that the 55-300mm will be better @ 300mm when compared to the 70-300mm.
hi Nasim,
after months of looking and researching, I got my D90 today with 18-105mm kit and the 55-300mm VR as well. After going through the menu, I realize there is so much I have to learn about its various settings ! Totally overwhelming after my Fujifim S2000HD P&S ! But that’s good, that means I will be occupied for a few years :) and won’t be too envious of D7000 owners !
I hope the 55-300 meets my expectation.
Rahul, congratulations! Now is the time to learn and enhance your photography skills ;) Don’t worry too much about equipment – just learn how to use what you currently have.
Hi Nasim,
I’m planning to return the kit lens (18-105) that came with D7000 and buy some other lenses. I’m planning on getting 18-55, 35 f/1.8 & 55-300 lens. What do you think of the choice?
Regards,
Pradeep
hi Pradeep,
I read two reviews saying the 18-105 is better than the 18-55 lens. besides, it has a more versatile focal range when you have just one lens to shoot with. Nasim’s own review says the 70-300 has faster AF than 55-300, and slightly better optically. The 35mm f/1.8 should be nice, if only the 28mm and 35mm were a little cheaper as well, like the 50mm f/1.8.
Pradeep, I don’t think you will get much value from switching from 18-105mm to 18-55mm. If you can afford it, just get the 35mm f/1.8G in addition to your 18-105mm. If you need to cover the long range, you can also get the 55-300mm…
Pradeep,
Keep the 18-105 lens, it’s versatile enough in some cases where you’d curse the 18-55′s reach. I can say the 18-105′s extra reach is quite handy when you don’t have the longer lens or don’t have enough time to swap. With the 18-105 you can snap a bee visiting a flower and then turn and click an aircraft at low-ish altitude like I did (ok not in quick succession; there was 30 minute gap and I had my 55-300 with me but there wasn’t any time to get it on to snap the aircraft. The 55-300 is the least used lens so far ;) so pick what you shoot most, first. I wish I got the 24 or 35mm 1.8 before the 55-300 , that you can use only when you are sure you need the long reach.
Hi Rahul & Nasim,
Thanks for your comments & views.
I’ll keep the 18-105 lens and get 35mm lens for now. I’ll delay purchase of 55-300 and will get it after I learn more about DSLR photography (D7000 is my first DSLR).
How is the weight of 55-300mm? D7000 is quite heavy and with the 18-105 it almost weighs 1kg. When you are using 55-300mm on the camera, can you really carry it hanging around the neck?
Cheers,
Pradeep
Hi Pradeep,
I got the 35mm f/1.8g and its very sharp for me. I love having it around my d7000. most of the time it is the lens i used to coz its lighter and sharper. I only put my 18-105mm when i needed the extra long reach. thou i may say, 105mm is bit short at times, but it’s bearable for me. but i might pick the 55-300mm for more extra long reach.
just a question nasim, will it complement my 18-105mm?
thanks.
BTW, should wait for 35mm F1.4 or should I get the 35mm F1.8? Are there any significant advantages of f/1.4 over f/1.8?
Pradeep, yes, there are significant differences between 35mm f/1.4 and f/1.8. First of all, it is a huge price difference. Second, the 35mm works both on FX and DX. Third, it is a totally different class of a lens than the f/1.8…
Can you also suggest me a good flashlight (SB400 or SB600)? I’m not sure I understand their capabilities or even my need. Since I’m a newbie I’m not aware on how to use flash effectively. I was not able to get any good & simple to understand reviews to make a choice.
Pradeep, go for the SB-600 minimum.
thanks for such an in-depth review .Excellent :).I will definitely share this review of yours with my friends .
So ,is auto focus as bad as it was suggested by you and Ken rockwell ? I mean in comparison to new/old tamron/sigma 70-300mm .
I know AF of those 3rd party lenses is pretty bad ,but wanted to know how does this 55-300mm fare against them .
You are most welcome Abhinav!
I do not know how AF performance compares with the Tamron/Sigma 55-300mm lenses…it is probably going to be very comparable.
Now I am totally unsure which way to go. 70-300 or 55-300. I plan to buy the new D7000 with the packaged 18-105 which will be good for general use. I need the 300 reach for when I’m hiking and see an animal or bird or something far enough away to exceed the 105. Your reviews have pluses and minus for each of the lenses. The lighter weight appeals but slow focus is not good. Will the focus speed depend on camera used i.e. the D7000 vs whatever you used? I also shoot the overall landscape which doesn’t always need the long end. In Yellowstone I needed all the reach I could get for bears, wolves etc.
Allen, for wildlife and birds, go for the Nikon 70-300mm instead of 55-300mm – mainly because of more accurate/faster autofocus.
Hello everybody !
I have a Nikkor 55 200 mm VR and i am very satisfied by this lens (quality, vr, AF) for shooting Funboards and surfers.
However it is a bit short to take pictures of fun boarders…
So i think to change it with a 55 300 mm vr because the sharpness seems to be the same than the 55 200mm..
However i have a big doubt : Ken rockwell and few other people affirm that the AF is very “SLOW” (in comparison with the 70 300 vr nikkor) …!
But in comparison with my actual lens 55 200 would you say that the 55 300 mm vr AF is quite the same ? Or slower ?
If i buy it it is specially for long range (200 300 mm) because my 55 200 is limited and it is annoying to crop ma pictures everytime !
PY_Martinez, yes, the AF on the 55-300mm is indeed slower than on the 70-300mm. The AF performance on the 55-300mm is the same as on the 55-200mm, so by getting the 70-300mm, you would getter faster AF and better AF accuracy.
All is quiet correct as stated. How ever” please take in to account that the 55 – 200mm and the 55 – 300mm are for DX Cameras. This in turn means that on a 55 – 200mm will end up some what as a 80mm – 300mm. The 55 – 300mm as an 80 – 450mm Super Zoom. If you choose the 70 – 300mm FX Frame Lens on your CMO sensor DX Camera such as the D90 > Then you will end up with a 105 – 450mm.
A 105 is a tighter frame sacrifice for a faster focus.
My preference would be to have a broader frame coverage of 80mm on the 55 – 300mm DX instead of just 105mm.
Hi, I’m looking to purchase bigger zoom for my D90, the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VRII was recommended to me however this was before the release of the new 55-300 f4.5-5.6 VRII – is this the better option for me? Other lenses: 50mm f/1.8 and 18-105mm f/4.5-5.6. My aim is to put together a good versatile kit without having to carry too much.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
hi,
I have the same set – 50mm f/1.8D , 18-105 , and the 55-300. I do think I should have got the 70-300, because it supposedly has faster AF, but also because being an FX lens it should have greater usable aperture wide open on a DX body, and is already FX is you plan to upgrade to full frame later.
Michelle, go for the Nikon 70-300mm instead of 55-300mm if you want faster/more accurate autofocus.
And as Rahul pointed out, the Nikon 70-300mm will also work great on a full-frame (FX) body.
Hello Nasim and everybody !
Thank you for your answer; between 55 300 and 70 300mm it will be the 70 300 for me even if i found it ….Heavy ! in comparison with my 55 200 ! But at 400 euros in France, Brand new, in December, the price is very interesting !
Just a little doubt : I will use my new zoom only in sunny conditions (surf, funboard), at 1/1000, 1/1600 sec..
I hesitate between Nikon and third party lens (tamron/sigma 70 300) : only 150 euros !!! (I know there is no stabilisation…)
In term of QUALITY of the picture , I insist on Quality (sharpness) , and in real life situations, will the Nikkor give me a substantial better image ?
Please give me an objective judgement because on Imatest reviews the difference of sharpness seems to be very small… But maybe because this is tests from laboratories and not from “real life situation” ????
Sorry just to complete my post by telling you that i have a Nikon D 5000 (not a full frame !)
I can’t speak on Tamron vs Nikkors sharpness , having used only Nikkors, but if you shoot only at fast shutter speeds like 1/250s and faster or use a tripod, you can do without the VR. Thom Hogan recommends, at faster 1/500s & beyond which VR should be switched off always. So as you shoot at 1/1000 or faster anyway, you can do without VR.
I have not had a good experience with Sigma lenses in the past (bad sample variation), but their quality might have improved over the last few years. I personally only use Nikon lenses, because I like the quality and the value they give me. Their resale value also tends to stay high overtime compared to other brands.
Nothing wrong with using Tamron and Sigma lenses though!
I would not even consider a Sigma lens. They tend to be a softer looking performing Lens all around. Not my thing.
Nasim,
How about the VR of the 70-300, compared to the VR II of the 55-300? Assuming the 55-300 is better at VR, because it is a newer VR, is this enough to offset the advantage of better AF on the 70-300?
Tks.
Eric,
I consider faster/accurate AF much more important than VR, I supposed most photographers will agree.
VR is not 100% effective either, and at longer focals even more so. I’d pick the 70-300 ( I have the 55-300 but may switch to the 70-300 sometime later , have not used one to be really sure how noticeable the AF difference is between the two).
70-300 is also VRII
Please check this link
http://www.nikon.co.in/productitem.php?pid=903-8c5b1906f6&display=technicalspecifications
Eric,
I had the 55 200 vr (1) and i have now the 70 300 vr (2) ….
What i can tell you is that the VR 2 of the 70 300 is better than the Vr1 of the 55 200 that’s sure.
For example the image moves the same way if you compare the 55 200 à 200 mm and the 70 300 vr2 at 300 mm. I would say the vr 2 of the 70 300 is excellent, and the old vr1 of the 55 200 is very good….
And the Vr of the 18 105 (i have it) is simply good …
About the quality of these two lenses and the speed of the AF i would say you should not see a significantly différence if you don’t test these lenses on a imatest mire !!!
Maybe for me the most différence in the réal world between 55 200, 55 300 or 70 300 is the weight and the size !!!
With the 70 300 you won’t take any pleasure to walk few hours with these lens ! When you use it à 300 mm you look like a paparazzi and for me it is really hard to take one hand picture maybe i should do some bodybuilding !
If i had to change my lens i thing i would prefer the 55 300 even if the quality or the af speed is 5 % less !
I ordered from this lense from canadian ” The Camera Store” today because of lighter weight and VRII…
btw I enjoyed your reviews and articles in general. Been in photography since I was young ( late 1970′s )
Prefer the Nikon ergonomics + menu system )))) So far I have Nikon D3100, used to have the D300s / sold due to financial reasons last year – miss the larger viewfinder & direct access buttons ((((( My main lense is AF-S 35 1.8 G as prefer low light photography
thanks Dan
With D3100……(18-55+55-300) or (18-105)
I have decided to buy D3100. I am getting three offers…
1) D3100+ 18-55 +55-200+Bag+ 4GB SD + Tripod =649euro
2) D3100+ 18-55 +55-300+Bag+ 4GB SD =699euro
2) D3100+ 18-105 +Bag+ 4GB SD =699 euro
Which one will be most useful ….I am beginner in DSLR…. Which one will be the cost effective too?
cancelled the 55-300mm DX lense as have second thoughts about it, seems 70-300 VR which is good for both DX and FX may be better choice due to better build quality and better autofocus….only question I have now is will I notice big difference between 55 or 70 being starting point of zoom? advice needed here
can someone explain lense breathing issue that the 55-300 does not have?
Dan, yes I would choose 70-300mm over 55-300mm too…and don’t worry about the focal length difference, you won’t miss 55mm too much.
You will have less Frame coverage” If you are happy with that > Great!
I would personally go with #2.
I think 2) D3100 +18-55 +55-300 + Bag + 4GB SD would be my choice
leave tripod for later date as if you get too inexpensive of a tripod you end up replacing it
the 18-105 overlaps the other 2 lenses, therefore not as useful
Hi
Can you explain this?
“this lens is not plagued with a “lens breathing” issue and 300mm on the long side is truly like 300mm, not shorter.”
” When compared to the Nikon 28-300mm lens, the Nikon 55-300mm can give a much longer range to work with, since the Nikon 28-300mm has a “lens breathing” design that brings down the effective focal length of the 28-300mm to approximately 130mm when shooting at minimum focus distance of 1.5 meters @ 300mm. There is a huge difference between 130mm and 300mm when it comes to field of view, and having a longer range is quite important while trying to fill the frame with a nearby subject. ”
Can you explain this more? Guess I feel like a newbie asking this? feel stupid at moment((( as do not understand completely
Most likely can only afford D300s replacement in future, full frame out of my budget…
Having hard time deciding between 55-300mm DX only and the 70-300mm that is both DX & FX
Dan
The front element of the lens is responsible for focus, when it moves to focus, it also results in focal length changing. This happens in all lenses with front focusing element, but it seems more pronounced in this lens (I haven’t used it myself, but the same effect exists in some other lenses).
If you’re looking to shoot birds or fast moving objects, pick the 70-300 ; the 55-300 if your budget is tight. It has faster AF and being FX , it should be even sharper on DX than DX lenses !
Dan, with the 55-300mm and 70-300mm lenses, you get the true focal length. Other lenses like Nikon 28-300mm have a “lens breathing” feature, which decreases the Field of View when shooting subjects at a very close distance – that’s just the way lenses are designed. You are safe with either 55-300mm or 70-300mm lenses.
“… decreases the Field of View when shooting subjects at a very close distance ..”
Shouldn’t that read “increases” FoV ? i.e. less magnification
Else you contradict the original ” brings down the effective focal length “, no ?
2) D3100+ 18-55 +55-300+Bag+ 4GB SD =699euro
You can get the tripod later if you find it necessary ( needed for long exposures). The 55-300 will get better reach or magnification for shooting faraway objects. If you intend to shoot mainly people and not interested in bird/wildlife, skip the longer lenses ( 55-200 , 55-300 ) and spend more on faster lenses like Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of the 18-55mm kit lens + 55-300 .
Nasim
based on what you told me and explained, I have decided to get the 70-300mm when my local dealer has it in stock, he agreed to match prices from online dealers and price he offered is $65 more than the 55-300mm lense. I feel and agree the better auto focus + build quality is worth the little bit extra money.
Dan
Dan, I agree, the 70-300mm is worth the price difference.
Hi Nasim ,
I would like to know whether quality of photographs taken from 70-300 mm at 105 mm focal length would be better than the same photograph taken from 18-105 kit lense at 105 mm only.
-amar
Hi Dan,
Who is your local dealer?
JP
Hi Nasim, I’m on my way to London and I’m willing to buy a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II Lens (Nikon AF) or a Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 VC PZD Lens (Nikon AF). What do you think about those lenses? Are these comparable to Nikon lenses? The first one is only ₤172,95.
Thanks, Eduardo.
Hi Nasim,
Do you have more pictures showing the difference of field of view between 200mm and 300mm? U already had a picture showing the comparison in page 3 (last image), but it would be great if you can put up a few more of 200mm vs. 300mm FOV. I’m using D3100 + 18-55mm + 35mm f1.8 + 16-85mm. I did try my friend’s 55-200mm the other day and it was pretty awesome when u can zoom in that far @200mm. Just trying to see how much further the extra 100mm can give me if i were to get 55-300mm next. :)
Other than that, thanks for the great reviews and guides from your website. It’s been helpful for beginner like me! (and I’ll still continue to drop by ur site in the future!)
Thanks!
Here you go: Nikon Focal Length Comparison
Thanks! Just what I needed.
Hello Nasim,
Thanks for in-depth explanation of this new item. Since I am new in photography world, I don’t understand much in difference between lenses. I am about to buy my first Nikon d3100 (thanks to your advises, you made my research less time consuming). However, I am confused about the choice of lenses for this camera. You recommended buying Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX, and I thought what if I go with Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens? They are at the same price.
I have to let you know that I would like to learn how to take good pictures of weird things (small weird-looking objects) as well as landscapes when I get a chance.
Can you please advise something on this difficult matter?
Thanks in advance!
Cheers,
–
Feruza
hi,
the 35mm f/1.8G and 55-300mm lenses are for very different purposes. The 35mm focal length is for shooting subjects relatively close by, such as people some 20 feet away. Generally speaking, 35mm is not so useful for landscapes, it’s close to the ideal field-of-view for people photography at close distances ( not necessarily portrait shots). The 55-300 lens is for shooting distance objects that appear small to the naked eye, but you would like a close up/magnified view of the subject which is far away, which can be anything from a magnified image of a flower at 10 feet , a flock of birds at 300 feet, or a fort atop ahill several kilometres away, or the moon ,which is much farther.
Have a look at this : http://mansurovs.com/lens-zoom-on-dx-15-crop-factor-cameras
to get an idea of what focal length means in terms of field or angle of view, then decide which lens is more important to you , the 35mm or 55-300. Since they are non-overlapping focal lengths, in fact they both would be owned as part of a lens collection.
Also see these :
http://mansurovs.com/equivalent-focal-length-and-field-of-view
http://mansurovs.com/telephoto-lens-focal-length-comparison
I posted these earlier , where’d it go ?
Also see these to get a good idea of how focal length relates to field of view.
http://mansurovs.com/equivalent-focal-length-and-field-of-view
http://mansurovs.com/telephoto-lens-focal-length-comparison
Rahul,
Thanks a lot for the links!
Cheers,
Feruza
Hi Nasim
I have a Nikon D3000 camera. I was planning on buying the 55-300 ED VR II but when placing the order, the technician convinced me that the 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR II DX is better due to the “conversion” (sensor conversion/cropping factor) in that the 55-300 looses wide angle and the 55 actual goes to 90-300. He stated that the 55-200 actual goes from 55-320mm, giving me better zoom. Supposedly the USA model works better (which is the one he sold me) and that the imported models are different. I’m not sure if I’m making any sense as I find this totally confusing. I contacted Nikon & they said that the 55-200 doesn’t have a VR II and that the 55-300 gives me better zoom, but the rep. was not too confident as she stated that if I had a FX camera, the zoom would go to 450mm.??? Being a novice, I’m not sure if I made the right choice. I thought the 55-300 gave me a better zoom. They would both cost the same ($269). I would appreciate any help you can give me to better understand. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Antoinette.
Antoinette, looks like either the sales person who made the recommendations, or you got confused (or both). Either way, I do not think it is appropriate for a sales rep to recommend a lens, especially if they do not know what they are talking about. Both Nikon 55-200mm and Nikon 55-300mm are DX lenses, which means that they will not work correctly on FX cameras (only half resolution). Also, there is no such thing as “USA” version is better than “Grey market”. The only difference between the two should be warranty. You should have gotten the Nikon 55-300mm lens, not 55-200mm.
Thanks Nasim, appreciate your help.
I have a heavier and larger Lens. I leave that one at home for my pro work. I instead used to use a Nikon 55-200mm for my travels e.t.c. It did a pretty good job for a mere $179.00 Australian Dollars. I decided to sell it and go for the 55-300mm for the extra range on a DX making it a 75-450mm. It cost me just $300.00.
It does what I want it too and the quality is good enough for Me. You can’t go wrong with this one for $300.00 Bugs and it is much easier to carry with you too given it’s reasonable size.
planning on buying d7000. was wondering to get one with a kit lens 18-105mm or buy a body and get 55-300mm lens. bokeh is important to me. would like take closeups of my kids and some soccer games mostly. Your help greatly appreciated.
The 55-300 is not a replacement for the 18-105, they are complementary lenses and you’d need both lenses or their equivalent focal range sometime or the other.
Generally, bokeh gets better on longer focal length and higher aperture ( thus , expensive lenses). But before you set out to buy long focal range lenses, you need to factor in the shooting distance as well. If you’re shooting a soccer match from the spectator stand, 100mm+ is the suitable range ; but if you’re taking snaps from much closer like in a garden from 10-50 feet , then 35-85mm would be suitable range.
nasim
I want to buy a D5100 and need to reach 300mm, but also cover shorter distances. Would the kit 18-55 + 55-300m be good enough? How about a Tamron 18-270mm PZD for lighter travelling?
your comments will be highly appreciated.
Hi Nasim,
Hope you are keeing well. I am looking for a telephoto lens to add to my lenses for my Nikon D5000. I cant decide between the NIKON 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens
(£ 160) and the Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro (Nikon AF) (£100).
I am aware that the quality of a Nikkor lens is superior but the cheaper Tamron lens, combined with a longer focal length and macro capability is making me slightly confused.
I am basically looking for something that i can take to sporting events and photograph animals/birds with. Any suggestions from you would be most welcome and appreciated!
Good day,
I have a D5100 with 18-55, I am choosing between 55-200, 55-300, 18-105. I hope you guys can help me with this decision, You guys maybe wondering why I did not include the 70-300, it’s simple, bcoz i cant afford it. and I am no pro.
Thanks.
Go for the 55-300 , it has a longer reach than the 55-200. Skip the 18-105, it’s not a bad lens but since you already have the 18-55 kit lens, this one does not make sense to get (unless it replaces the 18-55 , it is not a substitute for the 55-200 or 55-300 , these two are long telephoto zooms)
Tnx for the fast reply Rahul, appreciate it very much… I’m gonna be getting a 2nd hand 6months old 55-300 that sells around $180-200. You think selling my 18-55 for $80 and buying a 2nd hand 8month old 18-105 for $120 a good move? Tnx again. Have a good one…. :)
hi,
for a $40 net difference, the 18-105 is the way to go. Some reviews rate the 18-55 as slightly better optically, I haven’t used/compared the two myself, but the increased focal range of the 18-105 is quite an asset when you don’t have time to switch lenses.
Tnx for the replies Rahul… I got the 70-300 VR. It’s an 8 months old lens and bought it for $460 and good news is it still has 1yr and 2months warranty with Nikon… it really is a fast lens… tnx for this thread… :)
Hi,
This feedback is great . . . I am enjoying the learning and advice.
I am upgrading all my equipment from the old D70 and very old 70-300 lens with a 28 – 85 lens. I like wildlife/sports/travel (backpacking) photography and these lenses have served me well (even tho heavy).
I am planning on purchasing the D5100 body – I was advised to to with the 18-55 and 55-300 which I am now interested with the 70-300 based on the discussion/advice above. Question now is which lens to complement the 70-300 with?
Your thoughts?
Hi,
I just wondering, for those sample picture you show for lens 55-300mm. what SLR body you used?
Rgds
Sandi, I used the Nikon D300.
Hi
I have gone through the reviews posted and please provide your suggestion on below combination. I am interested in wildlife photography (especially birdwatching).
1) Nikon D5100 + 18:55 Kit Lens + 55 : 300 mm
2) Nikon D510 + 18:55 Kit Lens + 55 : 300 mm
Which would be better for a fast moving object and which lense would give me more clarity @ 250 + mm
Being a beginner I have few more doubts about the camera;
1) Can I use these lenses without tripod?
Please advise.
Hi,
I have a Nikon D5100 with 18-55mm kit lens. I am torn between 55-300mm and 70-300mm. I understand that the AF on 70-300 mm is much faster which is what I am interested in since I like bird photography. My concern is whether I would miss the 55-70 mm gap in kit if I buy 70-300mm lens.
Also, could you please shed light on indoor and low light performance difference between 55-300mm and 70-300mm.
wich lens is better for portrait n for distant objects..
Hi all,
I am new to the this game, I got D3100 recently, after reading all the previous review I am intrested in the 70-300mm lens, but Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G seems bit heavy for my budget still I could able to find another lens Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (4.3x) Lens which is really cheap, I would like to know what exactly the difference betweens these two guys in the real life at work, and its PROS and CONS.
Many thanks in advance,
Senthil.
Hi Nazim,
I’ve taking photo’s with 7.1 mp non SRL camera and I would like to get into the basic DSLR photographing before taking photos in relative’s wedding.
I have a choice between Nikon 3100/5100 or D90 with VR 18-105 mm or 55-300 mm and could you please recommend which is better camera and is it worth to spend more money get something better than D90? Where I can get decent priced Nikon cameras?
Thank you in advance.
Shawkat – Adelaide – Australia
Shawkat, I would get the D5100 with a kit lens and a 35mm f/1.8G lens from Nikon.
Hi…I didn’t want to buy a kit lenses, but I’ve got the d5100 with the 18-55 and the 55-300 for $900!! I believe it is a good deal (I hope so). I wanted to buy the 50 mm 1.8G…I want to take children & familiy portraits…and in the near future I want to buy a FX….so Should I sell the 55-300 that came with kit and buy the 50mm 1.8 and a flash? Money matters at this point but I don’t want to waste money in things that I won;t be able to use in the future….Additionally, I ahve 2 old nikon lenses (28-80 & 70-300) that won’t use with my D5100…..what is you advise???? thank you….
Claudia, I would personally get the 50mm f/1.8G and sell the 55-300mm lens.
Claudia, I am looking at purchasing the same kit you got and $900 is a great price. Would you min sharing where you purchased your camera. Many thanks
Hi,
I bought it from Costco, it was the last one they had in stock at that moment. Honestly, I would not buy it from them at regular price (it was $400 off) , mi camera had a shaking (difficult to explain) when I took picture, but they gave me a new one, it has the same problem but It is not big deal. It was a great deal, the camera, the two lenses (which I would not buy them again), a bag, 100 prints, memory card, warranty. By the way, I got the 50mm 1.8 and I love it, I never use the kit lenses, it is cold here so I needed a very fast lens.
Hello Nasim
I saw your answers in this forum , need your help and experience ,
I just bought D5100 , will lense 70-300 work with this dx formcaera well
regards
MM
Yes, it will.
Sir, I am new to the photography field, but extremely interested in Wild Life, Sports/action photography. I would like to purchase Nikon D7000 DSLR & Lenses
(1)Nikon 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR NIkor lens
(2)Nikon AF-S DX Nikor 55-300 mm F/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens OR Nikon 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR.
Kindly guide me whether the both lenses are compatible to the Nikon D7000 Camera. For my interest which lenses mentioned above are good. I shall be very much obliged for kind guidance .
Yes, both lenses are compatible with the D7000.
Hi there, I’ve been planning to get a new lens, it’s between 50mm or 55-300.. Please help me to decide..Thanks
Dianne, that depends on what you are looking for. The 50mm is a portrait lens, while the 55-300mm is a telephoto lens…
i have a nikon D3100 dslr… i want to buy a lens around 300 mm
so which should i prefer? Nikkor 55-300 vr or Nikkor 70-300
plz suggest… i am new to photography so plz help
Really impressed with the questions as well as with the answers. Thank you every one .
Im playing with D90 + KIt 18-105 right now . Wish to go for 35mm 1.8 + 55-300 mm since my budget does not allow me 50mm 1.4 + 70-300 Vr .
Since Im not a professional hope the above selected two could help me to move almost all the ends with moderate results.
What do you think ?
Nizam . Got 50mm 1.8 after considering your comments . Its great and cheap . Thanks
plz reply
suggest the better one or of another company
Nasim – thank you so much for this review, it’s outstanding. My youngest son (24) has a Nikon D5100 (18-55 & 55-300), I followed suit last week and purchased the exact same setup and couldn’t be happier. I went adventuring yesterday and 98% of my 300 zoomed bird shots were blurry. I was using the lens in your review with AF/VR turned ON and was told using the “S” setting would have better suited my shots along with somewhere around 1/250 and maybe tweaking the ISO a little as well. That said I was told the following on a photography forum I joined couple weeks back:
(copied from a reply on my thread about bird zoomed photos with the 55-300mm lens you’ve reviewed)
“1/125 is to slow , the bird on the right seems to be flapping his wings and therefore it’s blurry, if VR is off, the speed is to slow for shooting at 300mm
For the birds, or for shooting using the telephoto I’ll suggest you use shooter priority, instead of full auto, select speeds that are 2 x (focal length), if 300mm use 1/600 or higher
if using VR this rule does not apply as VR compensates most of the camera shake, but you still need at least 1/250 in case the birds are moving” (end-quote).
This was one of the best photos I took and what was replied to.
[IMG]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e50/BrettGabriel2006/DSC_00162.jpg[/IMG]
I’m grilling through the D5100 manual and the lens manual to grasp as much intel as possible because I’m going out again today photo-hunting for Hawks.
In closing I really do appreciate this review and have forwarded this link to my Son. He’s had his D5100 for about 3 months now and told me his bird pics were blurry at first too, so I know it’s the user and not the lens/camera for certain.
Hi, I need your expert advise please. I have a Nikon D3000. Would like to buy a zoom lens for this camera. Would like to take pictures of children, children activities (sport, musical, dance etc) and birds & other creatures. Which lens would be better for the above activities. Nikon 55-200mm, or 55-300. Thank you for all advise. I m very much a amatuer
Nasim, I need some advice on a lens purchase. I currently have a d90 with the kit lens, 18-105mm. I am looking into taking action shots at local sporting events, mostly basketball and football games. I am looking at purchasing a zoom lens and am being overwhelmed by all the choices. I would like to stay around the $1000 range probably no more than $1500 but if less great. What would you suggest?
HI. FEW WEEKS AGO I BROUGHT A NIKON D5100 WITH 18-55MM VR LENS. BUT FOUND THAT IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR LONG DISTANCE PHOTOGRAPHY OR ANY WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY. I AM PLANNING TO BUY A 55-300MM LENS. WOULD IT BE BETTER FOR ME ?
Go for 70-300mm VR . It would bring you a better results with your DX body. A solid Lens for around $600
Dear Nasim,
Being a wild life enthusiast and a avid photographer, i had managed to get my hands on a D3100 (18-55mm lens) and then i decided that with a few bucks, i had to get the 55-300mm lens and i did.What a shot? but then i have got a long way to go and appreciate some tips on taking a good wild life shot. How to adjust the colour (ISO), aperture etc to get that perfect shot. Thanks
Mohan
Good thread and very useful.
But still one question in the thread was not answered,
D7000 has faster focus technology compare to the any other NIKON models.
(1) Nikon AF-S DX Nikor 55-300 mm F/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens
(2) Nikon 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR
So, fast focus not an issue while consideration on choosing one of the lenses. Focal length we are not missing anyting.
which has better glass and better performer – sharper/ color wise?
thanks
I just bought a 5100 kit, which came with the 55-300mm VR. I own a D50 with a Nikkor 70-300 AF. My question is what would I be giving up if I just bought the 5100 body and used my own AF lens (besides vibration reduction). I’m an amature, and don’t really understand AF vs VR. My apologies that this is a ery naive question.
Thanks.
Hi Nasim N All
my first comment to the blog, really thanks for all the guys here for the sharing good experiences.
Dear Nsim
need your advise , I bought D5100 with 18-55 kit, I need to go for expansion of focal length as ia m more interested for wild life photography , pls advise will 70-300 lense will be good for 5100 body, what should i do i that case to bridge the gas of 55 to 70 mm.
really looking forward for you advise.
regards to all
MM
Hi, thanks so much for the detail review on the 55-300 lens. I had one question. Can you tell how this lens is compatible with the Nikon Teleconverters available in Market?
I want to get a Nikon D5100 16.2MP DSLR Camera Kit with 55-200mm VR Zoom Lens, so I wonder if I can get different lens for D5100, and which one is the best fit?
First of all, thanks a lot for this presentation!
I’ve been looking for this kind of detailed explanation on French websites, and to be honnest, I didn’t find anything, which is weird since the 55-300 seems to be pretty good at the end.
Anyway, I just bought mine for 150Euros, I’ll have it on Sunday evening, I just can’t wait to give it a try!
I’ll will share your test!
Thanks again!
hi nasim sir
can u sugges me which lense has propre zooming systeam for my nikon d5100 is nikon 55-200mm or nikon 70-300mm i am confused for that so pls reply me as soon as possible.
thanks
Hi, I recently purchased a D5100 with a kit of 18-55mm, also purchased a 35mm F1.8G and now I’m looking to buy a telephoto lens. I was considering the 70-300mm when I learned that it does not have a tripod collar mount. Being 745 grams I am afraid It’s too heavy for my D5100 body being all plastic and my main concern is can I carry it or mount my D5100 on the tripod with this lens?
I do own a 20 year old Nikon 75-300mm, It’s all metal and weighs 900 grams (it has tripod collar). Unfortunately I don’t have auto-focus with this lens. But buying a new lens and carrying around on the hand and not being able to hang it on a strap or neck is a no go. Please tell me if this would be a problem, I don’t wanna damage my camera?
Thanks for the nice community, helping the people in need
Sir, I am interested in Nikon D7000 DSLR. Kindly intimate the most suitable lenses for -1)wild life, 2) Action,3) landscape 4) Portrait photography which can be the best replacements to the kit lens, or is there any single lens which can serve all the purposes mentioned above?. Kindly reply..