Nikon lens advice please

Tricia · #1 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 10:17 AM

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO DG Macro For Nikon

I had to send this lens back - the lens glass seemed smeared inside - all my test photos looked as though they had been taken from behind a dirty window!

Shame because it seemed a good buy and I have seen some great pictures in the photo Gallery here taken with this lens.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens

I am now looking at the Nikkor 55-300 which is within my budget - I could buy it today

I already have the Nikkor 55-200mm which I use on my river walks but I am wondering whether the 300mm version would be a significant improvement on the lens I already have?

Or would it be worth saving up a bit more and getting this lens:

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Whilst I have made good progress recently in educating myself on apertures, shutterspeeds, iso etc. I am not so clued up with lenses so advice/recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

My objective is to be able to take clear detailed shots of birds etc without having to creep in too close and scare them off!

Thanks

P.S. I am not sure how to do links but if you cut and paste the bold headings into Amazon you will see the details of these lenses.

marvin · #2 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 10:29 AM

hi

this is not from personal experience but from what i have read the 70-300 is superior to the 55-300 and worth waiting for. but have a look at the new tamron 70-300 vc which is cheaper and supposed to be sharper at 300 (again just what i have read rather than personal experience)but if true it will be an advantage for bird pics as you will need at least that.

good luck
tim

nightshade · #3 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 10:37 AM

I was looking at the 70-300 on amazon the reviews are very good and point out any faults but there was only praise and one comparison with a more expensive model.

RobinP · #4 (**permalink**) 26-02-2011, 12:12 PM

The 70-300mm is probably a slightly better lens than the 55-300mm but I went for the latter purely on weight (200g lighter) the shorter focal length (better for plants and butterflies) and price (£120 cheaper).

If I simply wanted top quality pics I would have gone for the 70-300mm.

Robin

KentYeti · #5 (**permalink**) 02-03-2011, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobinP

The 70-300mm is probably a slightly better lens than the 55-300mm but I went for the latter purely on weight (200g lighter) the shorter focal length (better for plants and butterflies) and price (£120 cheaper).

If I simply wanted top quality pics I would have gone for the 70-300mm.

Robin

I know you are waiting for me to post some piccies with my Nikon 70-300mm, due here tomorrow. But have you read Ken Rockwells web site re lenses?

Nikon 70-300mm VR

Something he doesn't mention re the 55-300mm, but I have read elsewhere, is that it doesn't have a "back end" glass element. So it is easy to get dirt etc into the lens, and the only way to get it cleaned is to send it back to Nikon. Been trying to find this review again, but can't. Maybe I dreamed it! LOL!

nightshade · #6 (**permalink**) 02-03-2011, 08:10 AM

If I had the 70-300 it would probably never come off the camera, with normal amateur usage and sensible handling the problem should never arise. It is only Ken Rockwell's attention to detail that it is mentioned at all.

shagbat · #7 (**permalink**) 02-03-2011, 10:14 AM

I've had the 70-300 VR for 2 1/2 years, superb lens with a very respectable 'macro' performance. Until I got my Sigma 50-500, this was my
'standard' walking lens and it still comes out to play in lower light when the Sigma is an embarrassment.
I cannot comment on the 55-300 as I've never even seen one, but it would appear that from the major manufacturers, more weight (ie. more glass) along with a heftier price tag, equates to better quality and sharpness.
I highly recommend the 70-300 VR.
Mention has been made or the 55-200 (mine is 5 years old, with no VR)
It is a budget Nikkor, but being small, light and compact, it goes on my damaged (my fault, not Nikons) D70s for Notting hill carnival etc. places I dont really want to cart my best kit. It is a fabulous travel lens.
Hope this helps.
s

KentYeti · #8 (**permalink**) 02-03-2011, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightshade

If I had the 70-300 it would probably never come off the camera, with normal amateur usage and sensible handling the problem should never arise. It is only Ken Rockwell's attention to detail that it is mentioned at all.

It was the 55-300mm that I read has no "end piece" glass. Just in case anyone misreads things!

Amazon tell me my 70-300mm is now on it's way!