AFS 70-300 VR vs AFS 55-300 VR

[Treetrunk]

er true also...

but a 55-300 is only 495...
it is lighter, shorter and cheaper... so very attractive...

TS, i have to ask. Is weight or size an issue with your current 70-300? As far as i can see ,
both are pretty similar. The different prices between the 2 lenses boils down to the 70-300 being a FX lens. With a mere $100 (price of your existing 70-300)more, wouldn't the FX 70-300 be more attractive?

My 2 cents.

 

[desertstrike]

TS, i have to ask. Is weight or size an issue with your current 70-300? As far as i can see ,
both are pretty similar. The different prices between the 2 lenses boils down to the 70-300 being a FX lens. With a mere $100 (price of your existing 70-300)more, wouldn't the FX 70-300 be more attractive?

My 2 cents.

it is deinifetly more attractive if it weights lesser and cost lesser, haha

cos i was thinking, if i can do everything with the 55-300, why would i keep the 70-300? :dunno:

 

[desertstrike]

Got mine yesterday, 55-300mm [$482]...Definitley for daylight used only...Sharp and needs tripod for long range shotssss....

daylight condition can't shoot hand held at 300mm?

 

[kennynah]

daylight condition can't shoot hand held at 300mm?

i think CSer meant that these 2 lenses, being a f/3.5-5.6 max aperture at the respective ends, they are not fast lenses..and as such, they are suitable for day shooting..and not quite suitable handheld night shoots...which I can attest to...

if you dont mind the slower AF on the 55-300 vs the 70300, then i dont think it will be much difference when day shooting...but again, if you are into polarizers, 55300 will rotate at its end causing inconveniences..

glass elements wise, they are rather similar...

 

[chanjyj]

i think CSer meant that these 2 lenses, being a f/3.5-5.6 max aperture at the respective ends, they are not fast lenses..and as such, they are suitable for day shooting..and not quite suitable handheld night shoots...which I can attest to...

if you dont mind the slower AF on the 55-300 vs the 70300, then i dont think it will be much difference when day shooting...but again, if you are into polarizers, 55300 will rotate at its end causing inconveniences..

glass elements wise, they are rather similar...

No they aren't. 70-300 has better IQ than the 55-300.

 

[desertstrike]

i think CSer meant that these 2 lenses, being a f/3.5-5.6 max aperture at the respective ends, they are not fast lenses..and as such, they are suitable for day shooting..and not quite suitable handheld night shoots...which I can attest to...

if you dont mind the slower AF on the 55-300 vs the 70300, then i dont think it will be much difference when day shooting...but again, if you are into polarizers, 55300 will rotate at its end causing inconveniences..

glass elements wise, they are rather similar...

hmm... one thing i dun really understand, if they have the same max aperture, why would one lens AF slower than the other?

 

[baggiolee]

hmm... one thing i dun really understand, if they have the same max aperture, why would one lens AF slower than the other?

the type of AF motor used etc.

 

[Wurdelak]

hmm... one thing i dun really understand, if they have the same max aperture, why would one lens AF slower than the other?

this link might help with your AF speed question http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=775275

anyways, am looking for a used 70-300 vr... do let me know if you'll be selling it! thanks!

 

[dw8888]

hi guys, is it worthwhile to sell my 70-300 for a 55-300?

i am using a dx format dslr, thanks

Hi;
In the first place you should not compare this 2 lens. As I mention the 70-300 is a FX and 55-300 is for DX. So if you using a 70-300 in a DX cmaera it will become 105mm- 450mm, due to the 1.5x.
But if you are planning to buy a FX camera next time you can but 70-300 to keep. But who know what the techmology will become next time.
For me I am using a DX camera and I like to keep it light and small. I am not a pro. so no problem for me.

 

[kennynah]

hmm... one thing i dun really understand, if they have the same max aperture, why would one lens AF slower than the other?

yeah..maybe different AF motor in built..

anyways, they are not entirely exactly the same max aperture at the widest end...

55mm widest at f/3.5..but when zoomed to 70mm...it's not f/3.5 anymore but slower...while 70300 widest at 70mm is f/3.5

 

[chanjyj]

Hi;
In the first place you should not compare this 2 lens. As I mention the 70-300 is a FX and 55-300 is for DX. So if you using a 70-300 in a DX cmaera it will become 105mm- 450mm, due to the 1.5x.
But if you are planning to buy a FX camera next time you can but 70-300 to keep. But who know what the techmology will become next time.
For me I am using a DX camera and I like to keep it light and small. I am not a pro. so no problem for me.

There is a 1.5x crop factor on DX not matter what lens you use. Nikon doesn't give you "amended" numbers.

The 70-300mm is ~105mm-400mm.
The 55-300mm is ~82mm-400mm.

 

[dw8888]

There is a 1.5x crop factor on DX not matter what lens you use. Nikon doesn't give you "amended" numbers.

The 70-300mm is ~105mm-400mm.
The 55-300mm is ~82mm-400mm.

Thank you,.all the while I though DX len is for DX camera, when you use FX on DX boidy you need to multiple by 1.5x. Then I am confiused, what is the purpose differencing FX and DX len?

 

[dardar]

Thank you,.all the while I though DX len is for DX camera, when you use FX on DX boidy you need to multiple by 1.5x. Then I am confiused, what is the purpose differencing FX and DX len?

DX lens can only be used for DX camera. FX lens can used for both DX and FX camera so normally more expensive than DX lens.FX camera can use DX lens but will have some problems

 

[dw8888]

DX lens can only be used for DX camera. FX lens can used for both DX and FX camera so normally more expensive than DX lens.FX camera can use DX lens but will have some problems

Thank, I recalled what a Fisheye 10.5 will do in the D700, leaving a big black area. So that is how I thinking that way.

 

[chanjyj]

DX lens can only be used for DX camera. FX lens can used for both DX and FX camera so normally more expensive than DX lens.FX camera can use DX lens but will have some problems

Not 100% true either. The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX works fine on FX from 18mm onwards.
The image circle is large enough to cover the FX sensor.

 

[marky99]

Thank you,.all the while I though DX len is for DX camera, when you use FX on DX boidy you need to multiple by 1.5x. Then I am confiused, what is the purpose differencing FX and DX len?

Ha ha, join the club! :dunno::bsmilie:

Anyway I bought the 55-300mm yesterday from TK.

 

[dw8888]

Ha ha, join the club! :dunno::bsmilie:

Anyway I bought the 55-300mm yesterday from TK.

What club?: Confusion Club :bsmilie:
Actually not bad a lens. Now I know it is 400mm and not 300mm, even better.

Not 100% true either. The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX works fine on FX from 18mm onwards.
The image circle is large enough to cover the FX sensor.

So.... Complicated. I thought only click, click, click.

 

[bournemouth]

Aiyoh, so complicate. What's all these FX and DX in Nikon DSLR about. Does it mean DX is for beginner whilst FX is for professional? Can explain abit or not? Thanks

 

[DM101]

Ha ha, join the club! :dunno::bsmilie:

Anyway I bought the 55-300mm yesterday from TK.

I bought from DDE few days back... $409 cash ;p

 

[taluks]

hi there

care to post some pics with ur new lens tnx

planning to buy it also