Forums > Back > new 55-300VR, does it make sense or not?

08-23-2010, 10:01 AM

Does the new 55-300VR make sense or not?

It is lighter than the 70-300VR, but "only" made for DX.

The 55-200VR was a good cheap zoom (and very light).

The 70-300VR is very good low cost zoom (but a bit clumsy on a D40/D5000).

To make the 55-300VR a hit, it has to be at least as good as the 70-300 I suppose and about the same prize.

Since I like light equipment, it would perfectly fit me with only 500gr weight and still having a metal bayonet.

Has anyone seen any sample pictures yet?

**Klaus** · 08-23-2010, 10:18 AM

[quote name='deroppi' timestamp='1282557662' post='2034']

Does the new 55-300VR make sense or not?

It is lighter than the 70-300VR, but "only" made for DX.

The 55-200VR was a good cheap zoom (and very light).

The 70-300VR is very good low cost zoom (but a bit clumsy on a D40/D5000).

To make the 55-300VR a hit, it has to be at least as good as the 70-300 I suppose and about the same prize.

Since I like light equipment, it would perfectly fit me with only 500gr weight and still having a metal bayonet.

Has anyone seen any sample pictures yet?

[/quote]

The lens has not even been released ... just announced.

It makes sense, of course. It's cheaper to start with.

According to Nikon it has also much better MTFs so it's probably sharper specifically at 300mm.

Klaus

Brightcolours · 08-23-2010, 12:32 PM

Sample images from the new 55-300 VR (with unknown processing of course):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10234786@N06/4910647718/in/set-72157624767110208/

Clear is that the lens is no dog.

08-23-2010, 03:01 PM

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282566764' post='2039']

Sample images from the new 55-300 VR (with unknown processing of course):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10234786@N06/4910647718/in/set-72157624767110208/

Clear is that the lens is no dog.

[/quote]

Many thanks.

That does indeed look promising. (assuming that it is no fake)

Brightcolours · 08-23-2010, 03:26 PM

[quote name='deroppi' timestamp='1282575682' post='2045']

Many thanks.

That does indeed look promising. (assuming that it is no fake)

[/quote]

Well, the guy says he is a Nikon USA employee, look up his details on Flickr. And then do a google for his name.

It is a Pro account too, and at least active for over 3 years.

If that is fake, it is the most elaborate fake I have come across.

09-21-2010, 11:12 PM

I just joined today, so forgive me if I'm making newbie gaffes....

Is this discussion about:

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

I see the lens for sale, so would it be on the schedule for testing?

Thanks.

mike

**mst** · 09-22-2010, 05:57 AM

Yes, it's on the list. However, I can't give you an estimate yet when the review will be published.

-- Markus

11-15-2010, 01:37 PM

Meanwhile I have bought this lens and it looks like I'm satisfied.

I have compared the 55-300VR against the 70-300VR on my D5000 and I have to say they perform pretty much similar.

I would even say the 55-300VR is a little bit sharper at 300mm.

The 55-300VR looses a bit to the 55-200VR at 200mm.

But the VR is so much better compared to the 55-200VR.

It certainly has a some distortion at 200 and 300mm, but thanks to the latest FW update the D5000 is able to correct that.

The AF Module of the 70-300VR is superior to the 55-300VR and it allows manual override.

But the 55-300VR is smaller and lighter and it fits much butter on the small D40 or D5000 body (at least that is what I think).

I choose the 55-300VR because I got a good price and really liked the size.

So if you only need 200mm, the 55-200VR still is an excellent choice because it is so cheap and even smaller.

If you need sharp 300mm at a small size and affordable price and don't mind stopping it down a bit, the 55-300VR is something to look at.

I am by far no real tester, but I did a few "home" tests:

VR test:

1/8s, VR OFF

1/8s, VR ON

Login




Remember me Lost Password?

About Us