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?
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?