which telephoto zoom?

[super duper]

I would like to add a 300mm zoom lens to my little collection (eventually). The 2 lenses I am comparing are the Nikkor 55-300mm dx lens, and the Nikkor 70-300mm fx.

I already have the 18-200mm, so I'm not worried about the difference in zoom ranges. Both lenses have identical apertures and similar minimum focasing distances. The FX lens has IF-ED, while the DX lens is missing one of these acronyms.

The FX lens isn't *too* much dearer, but I normally steer clear of FX lenses, as I think you're paying for something you're not using (ie a larger sensor, larger glass).

I would be using the lens to take pics of my kids in situations where you cannot get in close (eg, sports, parks etc). For this reason I don't want a large aperture (and decreased depth of feild-I wanna capture the whole image), but I still want nice sharp images.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated :D

[kiwi]

70-300 VR

Ther's no such things as a fx lens that's bad for DX

[super duper]

Ther's no such things as a fx lens that's bad for DX

I never said it was

I normally steer clear of FX lenses, as I think you're paying for something you're not using (ie a larger sensor, larger glass).

[I @ M]

Another vote for the 70-300 VR, it is THE bargain lens in the Nikon tele zoom line up and will be streets ahead of the 55-300 in resale value down the track.

[swifty]

The FX lens isn't *too* much dearer, but I normally steer clear of FX lenses, as I think you're paying for something you're not using (ie a larger sensor, larger glass).



True, if you're concerned about the extra size/weight/cost.
But using DX, you're using the best bits of glass in the middle. The differences may only show up pixel peeping but that's up to you to decide whether the difference is worth it.

[RRRoger]

I really like the new AF-S Nikkor 28-300 FX lens better on my D7000 than the 18-200 or 70-300 VR

[Geoff3dmn]

I was considering the same issue 55-300VR or 70-300VR until I actually went to the shop and had a close look at them.

The 70-300 just feels better built (no not pro level but not plastic kit lens level either) whereas the 55-300 feels like the budget 18-55/55-200 lenses that came with my D90.

I see the 70-300VR as a 'keeper' lens (given that my budget will never stretch to a Nikon 70-200!) and the 55-300VR as a lens that I'd want to upgrade (like I wanted to upgrade the 55-200).

[super duper]

I have no ruled the 55-300mm off my list as it doesn't have IF and is slow to autofocus. I'm now tossing between the 70-300 and the 28-300. I'm half inclinded to save my bucks and go the 70-300, but RRoger, your posts about your lens are making me think about it. Aside from the great versatility of the 28-300mm, why is it better?

[Lance B]

Another vote for the 70-300 VR, it is THE bargain lens in the Nikon tele zoom line up and will be streets ahead of the 55-300 in resale value down the track.

Agreed.

I have shot with the 70-300 VR and it is excellent. Up to about 220mm it is almost as good as any of the pro grade Nikon zooms in that particular range IQ wise and it ain't too shabby right to 300mm. The best bargain Nikon zoom, IMO. For the price, highly recommended.

However, if you want to use a TC with your zoom to extend it's range, then you really need to opt for one of the pro grade zooms like the 70-200 f2.8 VR and add a 1.4x TCII - which gives you 98mm-280mm @ f4, or 2x TCIII - which gives you 140mm - 400mm f5.6. I highly recommend the latter combo as this is what I use regularly and the IQ is amazing. Fitting a TC to the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR you will lose too much light for efficient AF and IQ will suffer too much.

[russrad]

The 70-300 VR is an excellent lens and in my view a pretty clear choice over the plasticky 55-300VR.

[super duper]

However, if you want to use a TC with your zoom
I think I read in my manual that my camera (D3000) isn't compatible with a TC. I'm going to have to go back and have a good re-read.

[RRRoger]

I have no ruled the 55-300mm off my list as it doesn't have IF and is slow to autofocus. I'm now tossing between the 70-300 and the 28-300. I'm half inclinded to save my bucks and go the 70-300, but RRoger, your posts about your lens are making me think about it. Aside from the great versatility of the 28-300mm, why is it better?

So often it really comes down to personal choice.
If you don't use the 28-70 range much, you might like the 70-300 better.
I like the image quality I get with the 28-300.
I have used it only with the D7000 so far.
Indoor video, walk around and for landscape picture taking on hikes.
I've even used it in a non professional way to take macro shots of flowers.

I also have a 28-70, 70-200, and 80-400. On hikes, I prefer to carry one smaller and lighter lens.

[super duper]

Thanks for that RRoger, you've left me with a lot to think about.

[greenpea]

i have been using the 55-200mm for some years and have just upgraded to the 70-300mm on a DX
only major difference i have noticed is the weight, the 55-200 is alot lighter. and of course the extra 100mm on the 70-300
also noticed the 70-300 is slightly soft from about 250>300mm
Let us know which one you end up getting
:D

[J.davis]

Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, on a croped body it is 105-300 and the images are tack sharp and not a lot of $ for the non OS version. HSM is VERY quick and the lens produces very good colour rendition.

[super duper]

Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, on a croped body it is 105-300
My understanding of this is that the angle view would be equiv to that of 105-300mm, but you don't get any closer to the action. I want to be able to zoom in to 300mm, wouldn't a 200mm zoom give the same size picture on any size sensor?

[fastr1red]

I have both the 70-300 and the 55-200. I like the 300 most as it seems sharper. How about something bigger?
The Sigma 50-500 (bigma) is a great lens as well, but only thing it's just so heavy.
I think out of the lot I like the 300 and will end up selling the 55-200 for a 200/2.8.

[fastr1red]

Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, on a croped body it is 105-300 and the images are tack sharp and not a lot of $ for the non OS version. HSM is VERY quick and the lens produces very good colour rendition.

JOhn, do you know how the Sigma 70-200/2.8 compares with the equiv Nikon?

[kiwi]

Perhaps I can help as I've used both, and have seen literally dozens of side by side reviewed

They both have very fast and accurate focus
Nikon vr is slightly better, one stop, than sigma os
The nikon is slightly sharper at 2.8

So, sigma represents very good value

[mongo]

Mongo disagrees with all of it !

For what you want to use it for, and given that you already have a good zoom to 200mm, Mongo would much rather buy a very good used 300mm f4 for the same money and really have reach, speed and image quality with the added ability to add a X1.4 converter one of these days if you need it.

PS - or a used 100-300mm f4 sigma

[kiwi]

300 f/4 af-s good lens, but not a zoom :)

[mongo]

300 f/4 af-s good lens, but not a zoom :)

Kiwi, Mongo knows this is not a zoom. Super duper already has a zoom. What Mongo is saying is - maybe he does not need a zoom for what he wants to do. If Mongo is not mistaken, you use a prime 400 for a very similar purpose ( and no doubt your 70-200 at other times).

For the most part, super duper can use the 18-200 zoom he has if he is positioned where the zoom would be best AND use the fixed 300mm if he further away from the action. If he is lucky enough to have 2 camera bodies , he can use both at the same time

So Mongo's advice was intentional and remains unchanged. Just because the question is "which zoom" does not mean the answer has to be a zoom; particularly when it seems fairly general advice is sought to solve a problem or need. In any event, super duper can ignore Mongo's 2 cents worth if he does not like it. :) :)

[kiwi]

Indeed, I quite agree with you. If you are buying a lens for length then usually you're usually always at that end anyhow and a prime makes sense

I haven't seen any comparisons between iq of 70-300 vr vs 300 f/4 either

[mongo]

Indeed, I quite agree with you. If you are buying a lens for length then usually you're usually always at that end anyhow and a prime makes sense

I haven't seen any comparisons between iq of 70-300 vr vs 300 f/4 either

True Kiwi. But Mongo thinks the figures on the f4 are pretty hard to beat with the zoom even though this zoom may give reasonably good quality images and hopefully so at the long end which is where he wants this lens primarily for.

[super duper]

The Sigma 50-500 (bigma) is a great lens as well
I looked into this, but the reviews seem to be very hit-n-miss (some people love it, but just as many hate it).



very good used 300mm f4
Buying a used lens scares me. I'm certainly going to pick up a crusty old lens that is only being sold because it's been damaged. Interesting suggestion of lens though.



If he is lucky enough to have 2 camera bodies , he can use both at the same time
Unfortantely, she doesn't have two camera bodies :( But I still like the lens suggestion.



I haven't seen any comparisons between iq of 70-300 vr vs 300 f/4 either
This I will be keen to see for sure.


So, as soon as I rule one lens out (55-300mm), another one enters the debate......I've got til Mother's Day to make my mind up.

[SerenityGate]

Hi there SupaDupa, I think what Mongo means is that the 300mm f4 is faster and can still be used for with a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter. Because we can't use a teleconverter with the 18-200 zoom, not sure if the same applies with the other zoom lens (other than the Expensive ones).

Andy Rouse, the wildlife photographer who writes for Amateur Photographer magzine says the 28-300 is a really good lens for general use.

Peace & Happiness

Please refer to site rules regarding copyright infringement
[4] Information regarding copyright infringement may neither be requested nor discussed. This relates specifically to requests for software copyright infringement, discussion or promotion of software copyright infringement, or requesting/providing access to serial number generation software, or download information regarding potential copyright infringement of software, but is not limited to these.

[10] Members are not to discuss/promote or otherwise disseminate information regarding any illegal activity. Discussion of any illegal activities – be they criminal or civil – is unacceptable.

[Darey]

Here's my two bobs worth:
I think the best lens to complement the 18-200mm lens is a "Sigma 100-300mm f4 APO DG HSM" and later on add a sigma 1.4xTC for more reach.
The Sigma 100-300 f4 is almost distortion free, gives excellent IQ through the full focal range and the AF is super fast. Add the 1.4xTC and you have a very good, fast AF, 140 - 420 f 5.6 sport and wildlife lens. (P.S. I am biased because I love my Sigma 100-300mm f4)
The only issue is that the lens is a little heavy but that's the price you pay for good glass. With the 1.4xTC on I use a monopod and get very pleasing results.
The other drawback is my poor little Nikon 80-200 f2.8 hardly gets used now unless I'm shooting indoors without flash.

I hope I haven't confused your thoughts and hope you are happy with whatever you select.