Forgotten in its old age

by Aditya

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is almost twice as costly as Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX. Why is that so?

The only difference I see is the internal Focus. If that ignored are there any other differences between the two in terms of clarity. I was wondering if the 70-300 is worth all that extra money just for the IF!

Amazon links below

Nikon 70-300

Nikon 55-300

share|improve this question
    
also pls keep in mind that for 70-300 on a nikon 7000 will act as 105-450mm due to crop factor.. that can enhance your reach in telephoto.. –  user9448 Apr 17 '12 at 18:50
1  
Both lenses get the same crop factor. A DX lens isn't 'adjusted', it just produces a smaller image circle. They will have the same field of view where they overlap. –  rfusca Apr 17 '12 at 19:01
1  
Extending what @rfusca said, the 55-300 performs like an 82-450mm in 35mm-equivalent terms. –  Dan Wolfgang Apr 17 '12 at 19:25
    
I first heard about this lens from Moose Peterson's blog. Moose is a professional wildlife photographer. His recommendations carry weight IMO. This is near the top of my glass wish list. moosepeterson.com/blog/2009/05/28/nikons-best-kept-secret –  user6956 Apr 17 '12 at 19:43

3 Answers 3

up vote 18 down vote accepted

The 70-300 is a full frame (FX) lens, the 55-300 is APS-C (DX).

share|improve this answer
5  
Just to expand on this: Full-frame means the lens has to produce an image on a larger surface area. That usually means larger lens elements, and the more glass you have, the more expensive the lens. –  Craig Walker May 16 '11 at 2:04
    
Thanks, that explains it. I don't need it for my D7000. Will probably go with the 55-300 or a tamron –  sarego May 16 '11 at 18:28
1  
Well, I have read some other forum threads and on most places, people recommend 70-300, not only because of the FX. They say, that 70-300 has a better quality, faster AF, sharper at 300, etc. What's your opinion? I have the same dilemma now. Thanks :) –  Kiril Kirov Jul 27 '11 at 9:45
2  
Generally FX lenses are aimed at users of FX cameras, both of which are expert and pro-level, so naturally the quality will be better for the FX lens. –  ElendilTheTall Jul 27 '11 at 11:45

The 55-300 is meant only for DX cameras and the 70-300 is a good choice for both DX and FX cameras.

Beyond that, their build quality is noticeably different: the 55-300 is lightweight and the focus and zoom rings are not particularly smooth. The 70-300 is a little heftier with smooth focus and zoom rings. (To be clear, the 70-300 is not built like an f2.8 zoom, but it's nice.)

Image quality: for the price, I find the 55-300 to be quite good. Stopped down a little, you probably can't tell the difference between it and the 70-300. Which is to say, the 70-300 is clearly better wide open.

All considered, the 70-300 is clearly the better lens and in my opinion it's worth the price. If the price of the 70-300 is too high for you, I wouldn't hesitate to get the 55-300; it's a good lens for the price.

share|improve this answer

70-300mm is definitely faster than 55-300mm. I have tried and tested both of them on my D90. After few months of research, and savings, I went for 70-300mm and it definitely worth the price.

Why not 70-300mm ?

In my opinion the only reasons why someone shouldn't go for the 70-300mm is the price (compared to 55-300mm) and the weight of the lens.

share|improve this answer
1  
When you say the 70-300 is faster, I assume you are referring to autofocus speed, yes? The apertures are the same. –  Dan Wolfgang Apr 16 '12 at 20:20

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.