Is this lens considered a step up from the 55-250 MM one. I want to get closeup shots of birds on feeders--not surrounding area.
1516442
It is a step up from the 55-250. You can get closer to your shots from the same distance.
1516443
Short answer: "Yes!" I sold my 55-250 MM kit lens and bought the 70-300MM for precisely the reason you mention: to get better, closer bird images...in flight and on the feeder. I haven't been disappointed. This is a "sharper" lens than the 55-250 and the extra zoom range really comes in handy. Be aware, though, that the 70-300 MM is both larger and heavier than the other lens. At maximum zoom it is up to 8-1/2" long.
990751
I just bought the 5100 Nikon and the 55-300 lens, but I shoot birds, wildlife type things so I am wanting to know which lens do I need to zoom in on birds, ect. I cannot get much of anything with the 55-300 , flowers, humans, ect...not a good buy for me but I will keep it a bit longer-
24762
I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird photos are in dim dawn or sunset light or in shadow. I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird... » Read More I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird photos are in dim dawn or sunset light or in shadow. « Show Less
1671727
I have several L lenses, and my sense is that this lens is not inferior to those lenses. I think it captures excellent images; but, I am not a professional photographer. And I am not rough on lenses; I take great care not to expose any lens to situations that might damage them. In other words, the build quality may or may not be L level, but I will never know. It's great for walking around and getting shots that might otherwise be inaccessible. If you want a lens that is small in size but big in reach, this is it.
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
474710
I have been looking into buying one of the two as well. One of my interests is birds. The have the highest zoom Nikon 36 zoom and canon 35 zoom and all in one piece. Does anyone use either for birding?Thank you!
143452
It is a really nice lens. Though if you want portrait or medium telephoto, the 135 f/2 or the 70-200 f/2.8 are both fantastic as well, and maybe better suited.
927465
This is not a bad lens at all. It is certainly not the fastest or sharpest, but a very sharp and fast zoom with this range would be very expensive and bulky. I use it for bird photography with decent results. I would not get same results with any available point and shoot camera.
1668186
Well, if you do not have the Tamron telephoto lens. I would say yes to 16-300MM but upgrade from 18-270mm is not worth it due to different is not day and night.
1346889
I use the 50mm f/1.4 for almost everything. Although it is harder to get objects from far away, it is amazing what you can get out of it. The shallow depth of field is just top notch.
1113200
As far as I know from the t4i on there was a change in the motor of the cameras but the lens has a motor too. So my advice would be to try it on a store before buying it. I can tell you that with my camera (t4i) this lens is way faster focusing than the 55 250 IS II.
2219452
I agree with "sammy". Even if you get close enough to your target, whether through the use of a blind or other means, the lens quality from the 70-300 to the EF series lenses is considerable. Lens quality aside, the ability to "get close" without "being close" is one of the keys to great wildlife photography. The further away from an animal or bird you are, the more likely it will remain calm and stick around. While most of the Canon fixed telephoto lenses in the EF series remain out of reach for all but the dedicated professional, the zoom lenses in the series are reasonably priced and provide excellent results. Additionally, the extra 100mm on the 100-400 will prove to be very useful, especially around skittish wildlife like hawks and other raptors, and dangerous big game such as bears, elk and moose.
1945790
I use my 300MM f4 for bird photography and I usually have it coupled with the 1.4 teleconverter. The great thing about this setup is that I can shoot it hand-held and it's not too heavy to carry around. I have a D600 body and I typically shoot at 800+ ISO with fast shutter speeds (>=1/2000). I get great sharpness without a tripod or VR. This lens is great - super-sharp, quick AF, and light enough to carry around all the time. I recommend it - get the 1.4TC too.
608535
Hey,the focus is very fast and absolutely noticeable compared to the 18-55mm. Hope that helps.Kind regards
2264754
it is a good lens for shots that are not close. The 55 does not do wide shots well if you are close to the subject.. I have one for sale if you want it. blubman@hotmail.com
2254945
Hey, thanks for the help. I sure will take a good look for a 50mm to add to the 18-250 because in addition to outdoors, everyone also has to shoot indoors and if it is good in low light that is a big plus.