55-300mm vs 70 - 300 mm Why is the Nikon 70-300 mm VR more expensive than the 55-300Mm
1936609
I am a novice, at best. It appears to me that the 70-300 has these unique characteristics: -Yes, the 70-300 has faster auto-focus. -The 70-300 is an FX lens that is both fully FX and DX functional. The 55-300 is a DX lens, therefore it will cause sizing limitations if used on a FX digital camera.-The 70-300 is heavier and larger.
1936610
1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform worse than 70-300 in 300 range, so 70-300 is better for sports shoot.6. 55-300 is DX only, while 70-300 can be used in both FX and DX camera.Owen 1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform... » Read More 1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform worse than 70-300 in 300 range, so 70-300 is better for sports shoot.6. 55-300 is DX only, while 70-300 can be used in both FX and DX camera.Owen « Show Less
1936611
The 55-300 obviously has more bang for the buck. Go with the 55-300 for the savings if you don't plan to be on the 300mm end very much. It's best about 270mm. The 70-300mm is better than the 55-300mm on the 300mm end.
1936612
http://mansurovs.com/nikon-55-300mm-vr-reviewThe 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.
1936613
The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price.From what I've read about the 70-300:The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile.So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for.If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field and fast focusing. NOTE: Lenses are a long-term purchase more than cameras are. I have a Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8 lens I bought long ago that still works great with my d90. The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price.From what I've read about the 70-300:The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile.So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for.If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field... » Read More The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price.From what I've read about the 70-300:The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile.So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for.If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field and fast focusing. NOTE: Lenses are a long-term purchase more than cameras are. I have a Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8 lens I bought long ago that still works great with my d90. « Show Less
1936614
That 1.5x crop factor applies to the 55-300 also. In fact, it applies to any lens on a DX format camera. It's not actually zoom, rather it is a crop from the center of the image circle cast by a lens designed for a full 35mm (24mm x 36mm) slide. The focal length, however, is the same on FX and DX so the relative magnification of objects at various distances from the focal plane will be the same on FX and DX, but the field of view will be smaller on DX than it is on FX.
1936615
In regards to Yug's comment about the 1.5x zoom factor ....This is not entirely correct as any lens will give you a 1.5x zoom on a DX camera, even a lens designed only for a DX camera. So either lens will give you the same field of view when zoomed to the same focal length.
1936616
While the 70-300 is better able to stand up to abuse, and not limited on a polarizing filter, a recent Pop Photo response to a letter implies the 55-300 may be a bit sharper (July or Aug. issue) and says the 55-300 is "a steal."The 55-300 has a metal mount, not plastic. The 200 has a plastic mount.What i HATE is the lens hood that comes with this lens. Extremely fragile.
1936617
The less expensive zoom lens is usually the front element of the lens is rotated during focus or zoom. If you're used this lens with the cir filter, it will be a problem!In this case, the 55-300mm front element of the lens is moving during focus or zooming.
765800
I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider range of focus is important to me. Goodluck. I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider... » Read More I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider range of focus is important to me. Goodluck. « Show Less
1071778
One thing to consider is the wider wide-angle on the 300; 24mm vs. 28mm (equivalent). 4mm sounds trivial, but that is the difference between "sorta wide-angle" and truly wide-angle. To me, that makes the 300 worth the price difference, but your mileage may vary, as they say.
1114919
If you are really talking about the 18-300mm the older model is bigger and heavier with the same optic specs. The new one, $100 cheaper, has very good image quality and does macro close ups very well. This lens supplements my 150-500mm lens. This lens is 67mm and does not come with a hood. I am very happy with this lens
1910673
I've got a 18-55 that came with my D40 and I bought the 55-100VR. I don't really miss VR on the shorter lens. I love my D40 bur an itching to step up, so a body only option is welcome. Why is it camera companies assume people are always buying their first camera instead of stepping up? I'd look at the 3200 but it lacks support for the wireless remote, which I have found invaluable for getting into family shots or for long exposures. Cable release just doesn't cut it.
1380697
Cheaper and lighter, but slower at the long end of the zoom when compared to the older Nikon 18-300. Lighter than my old Nikon 18-200 VR. A well worthwhile upgrade, for me that is.
1644826
The difference is the lens. You will have a gap of 20mm that you can't make up unless you buy the 55-250. That is why I bought this package. But keep in mind that even though the other one is cheaper, you eventually find that you will need the 55-250mm lens.
992071
It's the same price whichever way you add them up. Kit with 17mm and optical view finder (899.99) + the 14-42 lens (299.99) = 1199.98. Kit with 14-42 lens (799.99) + 17mm lens (299.99) = optical view finder (99.99) = 1199.97. Okay so it's one cent cheaper.But yes, I agree I like the compact look of the 17mm lens
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.
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
1790371
Yes, the two lenses are worlds apart. The 70-300 is a top quality 'prosumer' lens, intended for advanced amateurs and pros on a budget; worth every penny! The 55-200 is an affordable, 'entry level' lens and an excellent value.
1790366
I have the 55 200 vr and the 70 300 vr. I like them both but if I had to get rid of one it would be the 55 200. There is no comparison in the build quality,, you get what you pay for. The 70 300 is heavy but I'm not even close to a pro photog and don't wag one around for long periods of time.
1494447
From what I see on Nikon's website, the 28-300 is a FX lens while the 18-300 is a DX lens. If you have a FX (full frame size sensor like D3, D600, D800) camera, you should buy the 28-300. You'd have to use the camera in crop mode if you mounted the 18-300. If you have a DX camera (D3100, D5200, D7100), you should buy the 18-300.
851241
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
1494448
the 28-300 is a full frame lens. It's bigger, heavier and more expensive. Most reviews indicate that the picture quality is almost the same. Why would you want it unless you have a full frame camera?
107775
My understanding is the 55-300 DA L is sold as part of the kit only. The optical performance apparently is the same, but it is a lighter lens matched to the K-X. You have already mentioned the other differences. I have the same kit you do. You may also want to do a search on the Pentax User Forum. I have found many of my Pentax K-X questions are common ones that have been posed & answered before.
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less