6 replies to this topic

[josh91]

Hi everyone, I have just joined the forum and I am looking for some advice. I have a Nikon D90 that came with an 18-105mm kit. Its been great for what I have wanted it for but now I want to start getting into some wildlife photography and therefor add a telephoto lens to my collection. I was initially drawn to the 55-300mm VR. But after reading as many reviews as I can find im not sure. Different reviews seem to be very conflicting. I can see that the 70-300mm VR is the better option but that is out of my price range. So my question is, is the 55-300mm that bad? Or will it be good enough for what I need? Im fairly new to photography and have a lot to learn, chances are, I wouldnt be using a 70-300mm to the best of its ability anyway (at least not at the moment) So what does everyone think?

 

Thank you in advance

Josh

[ScottinPollock]

It has a lot of glass in it and is not very sharp. You could probably get by with it on the D90, but if you ever move up to a higher rez body you will notice the softness of it.

If I were you I'd look for a used 70-300 or maybe the 55-200 vr II which is a very good lens on sale now dirt cheap (if you think 200mm would be enough).

None of these lenses are very fast so you will be challenged in anything less than really good light for wildlife, especially given the D90's low light performance.

[mikew]

Josh, its difficult to answer as only you know your budget and expectations, i had one and didn't think it was too bad, here is a link to some that i took with mine.

 

Search | Flickr

 

If ir was all i could afford i would have one again, i wouldn't find the IQ limitations as frustrating as a lack of reach with a shorter lens, 300mm is not that long for wildlife.

[Merco_61]

A used 70-300 VR shouldn't be too difficult to find and they aren't that expensive. The Tamron 70-300 is another alternative. It isn't the most contrasty there is, but the sharpness is adequate as you won't be using the full FX area. The 55-300 isn't that bad either, and works adequately on 12 MP.

[TBonz]

As stated, neither is going to be effective in lower light.  Many years ago I had a D90 and had to push its ISO up to ISO 6400 at times - noise was obvious but at least to me it was acceptable vs. no images / different settings.  Given the choices above, I would definitely go for a used (or save for new) 70-300.  I've never had either lens, but basing my opinion on images I have seen from both lenses.  Not that the other is bad, but I preferred images from the 70-300...

[Steve M]

I have one.   It came with my camera.  I have used it for Wildlife.  Fine if sitting on a pond or in a tree.  Flying not so much or anything moving.    

 

With that I found that keeping it on AFC and holding shutter button down half way for a bit to let it focus it works ok.   I would never go out and buy one though even if used. 

 

 

Mine also had to go in for repairs.   And now a month later it may have to go back in again.  So the reliability may not be the best.  

[Ron]

One little point about the 70-300VR.... not the latest 'P' model but rather the older 'G' model, it's exceptional even wide open. So, while it's pretty slow, you may find that you often don't need to stop down in order to obtain acceptable images.

 

AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED | Nikon