ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
lenses with "DX" are meant for APSC sensors, those without are "auto" FX. Pls check what is APSC if you are unsure.
AFS 70-300 VR vs AFS 55-300 VR
- Thread starter desertstrike
- Start date
lenses with "DX" are meant for APSC sensors, those without are "auto" FX. Pls check what is APSC if you are unsure.
bournemouth
New Member
Thanks, friend. Will Google what APSC sensors is all about. :angel:
desertstrike
Senior Member
actually it just means a smaller sensor vs bigger sensor...
desertstrike
Senior Member
not necessary for beginner or expert, it is abt the crop factor, this u have to google, go in this direction, and u will find what u need for dx/fx sensor
bournemouth
New Member
True this is what I understand after Google it. I believe the 55-300 is meant as the continuation of the standard kit lens 18-55 for DX and since it is much cheaper than the 70-300 it does not make sense expanding more funds in purchasing the more expensive 70-300 when the quality of the shots are no difference between the two lenses unless one wants to upgrade to FX at later stage. So unless it is confirm that the FX can produce better quality result than the DX to my mind the pocket must rule the day in one's selection of which of the two lenses to acquire. Right?:think:
desertstrike
Senior Member
hmm... that time i buy this 70-300 cos there is no 300mm at this weight and price, now there is this 55-300, why not? haha
pros (55-300)
1. light
2. smaller
3. cheaper
cons
1. rotating front element (not an issue if u dun use polarizer, dun think anyone will anyway)
2. no AF with manual override (i dun use it anyway... my dx camera viewfinder cannot tell whether it is 100% in focus or not, so i rather trust the AF)
3. build is inferior (But is it really that impt? haha)
4. AF motor, i think it is using a inferior motor, AF is slower... not by a lot... see whether u can take it or not, anyway, this is the only point that would affect my decision, the rest are mediocre
bournemouth
New Member
Much obliged with your concurrent to that simple view of my. Any way it seems that Nikon intends it's 55-300 as a training lens for it's entry level DSLR like the D3100 where newbies are still wet at the ears as evidence by the fact that one can purchase this lens at $490.00 or thereabout. The price says it all and so there is nothing to compare the quality of this lens to that of other tele lens in the 300 range. To my mind by the time a newbie have master the rope of taking good long range shots it will be also about time to retire the 55-300 to the display cupboard as a reminder of one's salad days in photography and move on to inquire and compare the different range of tele lens. How about the 80-400? I have seen some of the photos posted in this forumn under other thread said to be taken with 80-400 and believe me it is impressive. Well I think the price of 80-400 lens is also equally impressive but then who can say photography is a cheap hobby.
:embrass:
desertstrike
Senior Member
Er... firstly i think the 55-300 is cheaper than 490
anyway, i did a one to one comparison of the 70-300 to 55-300... not at 100% though, but i cannot really tell the differences... perhaps u should see one urself, if u urself cannot see the differences, then i think it does not justify the increase in cost to get the more expensive one.
the 80-400 i have use it for a while, it is heavier, a lot more costly. It is not a AFS, so AF will be slower and of course noisier, and if it cannot AF under low light, it will hunt, thats where the noise will be louder, however the image quality is good. But if u do buy this lens, pls check throughly, i have seen some sharper copy while some softer.
Oh, if you think DX and FX is complicated, wait till you get to the Canon system, APS (full frame), APS-C (1.6x crop), APS-H (1.3x crop)
DX is a 1.5x crop, FX is full frame.
bournemouth
New Member
Er... firstly i think the 55-300 is cheaper than 490
anyway, i did a one to one comparison of the 70-300 to 55-300... not at 100% though, but i cannot really tell the differences... perhaps u should see one urself, if u urself cannot see the differences, then i think it does not justify the increase in cost to get the more expensive one.
the 80-400 i have use it for a while, it is heavier, a lot more costly. It is not a AFS, so AF will be slower and of course noisier, and if it cannot AF under low light, it will hunt, thats where the noise will be louder, however the image quality is good. But if u do buy this lens, pls check throughly, i have seen some sharper copy while some softer.
So don't it boil down to the fact that the difference between both lenses is so insignificants to be of concern to entry level DSLR user. May I say that at the end of the day it's more of a case of the singer and not the song. So let us non professional photographer gets on enjoying our hobby without breaking the bank account. I think the 55-300 should do a good job for the time being and until then don't think too much on the technical aspect of the other lenses until we turn pro.
Lastly thanks for your caution on the 80-400. Very surprise of what you have stated that the quality of the lenses can varies from one to the other. Surely Nikon must have some QC on their products especially in such critical things like lenses where it can cost a bomb to one's pocket. :bsmilie:
bournemouth
New Member
So it looks like Nikon and Canon the leaders in the market are confusing all of us until we really do not know the advantage of what one system has over the other. :bsmilie:
chanjyj
New Member
It isn't confusing if you do your research.
Even if someone gives you a simple pro vs cons answer but you don't do some research, you won't get the full picture either. There are alot of nuances to this subject.
55-300 a training lens?
I must be still a trainee because I was still using the 55-200 until very recently.
The lens produces good results. Even professionals will use if the lens can meet requirements of the situation. Consider rock climbers and trekkers. Reducing unnecessary weight is critical. And for climbers who climb in good light most of the time, the 55-300VR is enough and the light weight is a godsend.
In the end, the important thing to note is your needs, and what a particular lens can do or can't do. Just match your needs to the specs and it is a good lens.
There are no strictly pro or non-pro lens. There are no strictly pro or non-pro cameras. Just pro or non-pro photographers. And "Pro" means they make money from photography, it has nothing to do with skill level or how good they are. And more than often, I can tell you hobbyists' gear are a lot better and more expensive than pro-shooters.
Last edited:
fmeeran
New Member
The main difference between the two which can have an effect on your photography is AF speed. The 70-300 has a faster AF-S motor atleast to me seems to lock on focus much faster than the 55-300. Makes a difference only if you're trying to shoot birds or action.
70-200 is much better for the action but is a very different class of lens.
La Fontaine
New Member
Pardon me, please write in simple English. Sounds queer to me.
Back to the lenses - my advice is that we should go for the best lens you can afford. Lens does play a big part to the PQ. And the lens is the stuff that would be with you while you might be going for the next cam.
Views from forums, test reports and specs might tell you something, but nothing beats trying the lens out in the field, shooting real pictures.
And the last thing I have got to say - at times, even 300mm might not be quite enough, when you need to do some cropping. After cropping, you will be able to see the true "colours" of the lens.
DM101
Senior Member
hi there
care to post some pics with ur new lens tnx
planning to buy it also
Sure bro... here you go taken from Sungei Buloh Nature Park yesterday - drizzing so can onlytale from the shelters
Cloudy day. AFS 55-300mm 4/5.6G @ F11 and ISO 200. WB Auto. EV - 0 PC - Standard (customised). All pictures below No PS done - only convert to 1024 x 680 using ViewNX2. Handheld - no tripod used
@ 55mm
@70mm
@100mm
@135mm
@200mm
Last edited:
DM101
Senior Member
@300mm
As you can see the tiles of the shelter and N-S-E-W is visible @ 300mm
Clubsnap forum scaled above images - the actual 1024 size is here http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/dm1001/NIKON 55-300mm DX SHOTS/_DSC0015-1.jpg
As you can see the tiles of the shelter and N-S-E-W is visible @ 300mm
Clubsnap forum scaled above images - the actual 1024 size is here http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/dm1001/NIKON 55-300mm DX SHOTS/_DSC0015-1.jpg
Last edited:
Similar threads
