I've been hankering (again) after another lens - it's not pretty as I've not long got my lovely 35mm 1.8

However, I've realised that my 55-200 isn't long enough and I was thinking about a 70-300. However, I've found that there is a 55-300 lens that Nikon do which is tempting, especially as it's £200 less than the 70-300. Both of which are VR.

I reckon I could get about £100 odd for my 55-200 as it's in good nick and has been well looked after so the 55-300 would only really cost me about £100 odd - the only fly in the ointment being that my OH bought it for me for my birthday a few years back.

Now, I've since found this which is a Tamron 70-300 lens which is not a lot at all, it also "has macro capability". This, however, isn't a VR lens.

So, what are the opinions on these lenses? They'd be for my D3100 so anything that isn't an AF-S type lens isn't an option really.

I'm gravitating to the Nikon 55-300 but am curious as to whether it's worth £100 more.

Thanks

JTW

Heh heh, it is - I was taking some moon shots which weren't very good and we have occasional BBMF flybys which the 55-200 isn't really long enough for.

My house is also about half a mile from a skydiving club which, in spring/summer runs all the time and some photos I've had on a borrowed 30mm lens have been great, whereas on the 200mm, not so much.

Oh, come on! In true PH tradition it HAS to be the 200-400mm f/4

















I had the previous incarnation of the 70-300mm for a while. Good piece of kit on a DX format, quite good quality with its ED glass and very light and compact for what it does, has a good lens hood, is built well and always AF'd quickly even on the old screwdrive with acceptable hunting in lower light. I parted with it and later went to a 70-200mm plus TC14 (and TC20 occasionally). Other PHers have had experience of the 70-300 in its three AF guises, the latest version has AF-S and VR - see here - is a bit more bloated, to accommodate the Silent Wave Motor but is still a good piece of quality kit. The other difference is it has to be more expensive and bigger because it has to cover an FX sensor image size. Bearing in mind that you would only be using the centre of the frame on a DX sensor I think you would probably find the 70-300 well worthwhile.

As for third party lenses, I cannot say too much - I had an older manual Tamron 300mm. It was "adequate", in fact tied down on a tripod and with the best technique it was surprising how good the results could be.

But with 300mm you need:

1) Good technique
2) or fast glass
3) Good technique
4) or VR
5) and Good technique

If you want to focus closer, I recommend considering slapping a close-up lens on the front. Any third party that can claim to do any better on specs than Nikkor must be compromising somewhere - even if they can shave a bit off the bottom line.


PS the latest Nikkor is also an IF design, IIRC, much better than the previous ones (no extending, rotating front end).

OP, are you using DX or FX?

Been mulling over this topic today at work whilst procrastinating!

Yay! Results? (Don't you get a free gym card if you hire one?)


Yes you are on DX!

Just switching to FX otherwise ...... See all the "How are you selling..." threads we've had recently. I'm still an Ebay fan. In four years of owning a (secondhand to start with) 70-200mm I've just sold it for just £7.53 less than I paid for it.


(I did also start accidentally bidding on a 14mm - that's another story - so, I hate Ebay too! Nice lens though! )

Oops, missed the body in the original post, yes as k12 said, DX

I think you'll notice a drop in IQ going from the 55-200 to the regular Tamron 70-300. The Tamron is ok for the money but it is a very cheap lens and it does show at times.

The newest Tamron 70-300 VC is supposed to be very good but more like £250 second hand. Personally though, would hunt out a Nikon 70-300 VR. It is an excellent lens whatever you use it for. The 55-300 is meant to be decent enough but with a used 70-300 being available for £250 or so, that is definitely where my money would go.

I had the Tamron 70-300 Canon fit and it was OK but not a patch on a Canon lens. Suffered various forms of distortion and images were never pin sharp. I'm not the greatest photographer so take some of the blame myself but I've achieved much better shots with modest Canon lenses. I didn't feel the Tamron was very well built either. Would need a lot of convincing to buy another Tamron.

Ha ha. Hope you're enjoying it! Grabbed this with it on it's final trip out with me.


TRI_3342 by G.A.D, on Flickr

I just missed out on your 70-200. Some pest beat me in the last couple of seconds. My bank manager probably breathed a sigh of relief.

Anyway, seeing as I've dragged this off topic, just to redress the balance. I had a Nikon 70-300 VR and before that I had a 70-300 Tamron (the cheaper one) and the difference was just huge. It's not just the IQ (thought the Nikon is substantially better there as it should be for the money) but just the handling and general feel. AF is pretty quick too. It's a lens that a pleasure to use. VR is bloody effective too. These were taken using a 70-300 vr


_GAD1114 by G.A.D, on Flickr


_GAD9901 by G.A.D, on Flickr


Puffin Cliff by G.A.D, on Flickr


Meerkat by G.A.D, on Flickr

The new Nikon Magazine did a comparison of all of these lenses a couple of months back. If I still have a copy, I'll dig it out and pop in the post to you.