A friend just bought the 70-300VR for use on the D3100 from B&H. She got the whole rig (18-55VR and the longer 70-300VR for under $1,000. She already knew the 70-300VR was her single favorite lens as she tends to shoot tele and had used mine on the D300 quite a lot. Since the 70-300VR is FF capable (my well known cover shots etc. were done with that lens on F5 and D300). This is a great lens at a modest price!

iDunno what body are you shooting with? The 70-300mm VR is really awsome I loved mine. I traded it in once the 28-300mm VR came out right away and am really enjoying it now as well. For the cash the 70-300mm won't disappoint. The 200-300mm is fine as well in a pinch for the money its more than usable don't read too much into internet fluff and MTF curves!

this needs to be updated, as you get the opinion that quite a few of the posts is about what people think the 55-300 will be.

They have or have used the 70-300 and base their thoughts/review on the 55-200, the lower price of the new 55-300 or the fact that it is a DX lens made of 75% plastic and cannot be used if you are upgrading to FX.

As the lens is now out there for a while, we need some hands on reviews of the 55-300 as used on DX cameras by people who are happy with DX and have no intention of jumping FX.

Come on guys, lets have your reviews on a lens thats lighter and cheaper only because its made smaller for DX,

Forget the plastic, its not an indication of quality, even glock and benelli use plastic, its lighter last longer with stands abuse better than metal, look at the amount of parts of your car that is now plastic, from bumper to intake manifolds.

I have photographed lots with both lens mentioned. The 70-300VR is far better at the 300 than most people can believe. Another factor is physically how you use the lenses in the field. I find that during fast field use the 70-300VR can be gripped with the lens racked out to 300 and shoot at speed better than the same lens not racked out to 300 (say at 250). There I find that my focus was simply better on the 300 setting as I could stabilize the camera while hand shooting for a race car at over 200 mph or a Ruffed Grouse in flight. When I shoot those subjects I use a D300. I also know the D300s can handle the same assignment with real style.
These lens charts are one thing and practical use in the field is another. I shoot 70-300 also on D700 where it is again superb and that includes at 300mm, often for the same reason. I have published frontipiece book shoots at 300 with that combination and also the same with the 70-300 D series lens on Nikon F5. I have two (!!) 70-300 D series Nikkors and my racer guys have field results with that that are extraordinary. They primarily use video in the field during races, both front and rear view facing. Their assessment of the 70-300 D series Nikkors obviously was that it is a great lens. They think the 70-300VR lens is bigger and better. The 55-300 though I fell is not the same deal and nether is the 55-200 in that category to me. I need the 300 end of that equation for what I do. I use the 70-300VR almost all the time as my tele. I also owned the more expensive bigger Nikkors which are highly rated and I found them to big and too incapable of fast field handling.

I don't think there is a choice. Go for the 70-300mm VR

Full frame (Can be used on all Nikons, Newer film, DX, FX)
Sharp
Built well
Been go to lens for many for quite a few years.
VR is great and works extremely well.

55-300 vr - DX, New, Consumer replacement for the 55-200 vr.

My 70-300 VR is good all the way out to 300mm on my D90...my 55-200 is a complete dog at 200...if the 55-300 isn't any better than the 55-200 and you need good IQ at the long end...why bother?,just spring for the 70-300 VR!

Hi all,

+1 on the 70-300.

I have a refurbished 70-300mm VR and it's cheap and terrific.

My best to all,

Mike

Well I went to Milford photo today and checked out the goods. The tamron the 70-300 nikon and 55-300 nikon.

I have a 55-200 now. The 55-300 is a disappointingly modest upgrade. The "zoom" from 200 to 300 was far less than I ws hoping. The zoom was a little rough about 140 are and was rather smooth at both ends. It is pretty light weight and focuses reasonably quickly. It isn't that much larger than the 55-200. The big negative for me was the rotating focus. The no manual override was the ultimate dealbreaker.

The 70-300 nikon was a beauty. Not the newest. But I think on a dx it is still king.

Finally the tamron. Bravo to them. This thing is really solid! It was not quite as smooth focusing at the nikon 70. But close. The vc vr or whatever they want tought it as is pretty slick bi think the build quality was above the 55-300 and right there with the nikon.

At the end of the day for MY 400 bucks I'm going to go with a refurb 70-300 nikon. If inwas buying new it would definitely be the tamron.

The shame is that they don't carry the refurb nikon, which I can get at bh. I posted on the other thread that I like to support local b and m. This would have been a great chance to do that. As much as I hate to give the great state of Connecticut 6%. I like giving the store the business. Tax tax tax. I am about to join the tea party....

I would go for 70-300, it's really good lens considering it's price tag

Anyope get a 55-300 or the tamron 70-300 yet? I know the reviews are starting to trickle in; and I am looking for something to pair with my eventual D7000 :)

aslightdelay said:
Question is, will it be useable throughout that focal range? I remember seeing something where one of the lenses (I think the 18-200) really only went to about 180.

It depends on how close you are focusing. The focal length changes with the focal distance.

aslightdelay said:
Question is, will it be useable throughout that focal range? I remember seeing something where one of the lenses (I think the 18-200) really only went to about 180.

I guess this lens is a great kit lens, but I agree, the 70-300 might be a better idea if 300mm reach is what one wanted. Besides, the 70-300 is FX capable, that might be a plus.

Abhinav said:
70-300mm VRII ?? next year right ? right now nikn produces 70-300MM VR I ?please correct me .

No, it's VRII. Nikon isn't consistent, like PB PM said. Read on...
http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2161/AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

Question is, will it be useable throughout that focal range? I remember seeing something where one of the lenses (I think the 18-200) really only went to about 180.

VRII in this case could mean second version, not VRII as in the updated version of VR with 4 stop vibration reduction. The 18-200mm VR always had VRII, but the second version of the lens released last year was called VRII. The 16-85mm VR has VRII, but it is just the 16-85mm VR. The number on the name plate does not always mean that the lens does or does not have a given version of VR.

70-300mm VRII ?? next year right ? right now nikn produces 70-300MM VR I ?please correct me .

PB PM said:
The 55-300mm seems like an attractive focal range, because it offers a little bit wider field of view, but I doubt that a kit lens class unit will be optically better. If it is, expect a 70-300mm VRII next year!

I think it might have to be a VRIII if they revised this lens, as the current 70-300 was the first VRII lens Nikon produced.

gelu88 said:
I cant see any room left for the 55-200.

I assume the 55-300 will become the "go to" kit lens add on for the consumer market. The only way the 200 can remain relevant is if it gets a price drop, which i doubt Nikon would want.

I assume Nikon would prefer to sell the higher priced 55-300 with every kit and let the old model die.

Considering that the 55-200mm VR costs ruffly half the price of the 55-300mm VR, I think there is plenty of room left in the lineup.

gelu88 said:
I assume the 55-300 will become the "go to" kit lens add on for the consumer market. The only way the 200 can remain relevant is if it gets a price drop, which i doubt Nikon would want.

I hope you're wrong.

The 18-55 VR, 55-200 VR, and 35 1.8 make an excellent high performance / low cost DX kit, AND they all share 52mm filters - something I think is very important in nurturing the development of beginners. This 55-300 has (crazy) 58mm filter threads, totally throwing a wrench in the works.

I cant see any room left for the 55-200.

I assume the 55-300 will become the "go to" kit lens add on for the consumer market. The only way the 200 can remain relevant is if it gets a price drop, which i doubt Nikon would want.

I assume Nikon would prefer to sell the higher priced 55-300 with every kit and let the old model die.

I wonder if this lens will mean that the 55-200mm VR will be discontinued? The 55-300mm seems like an attractive focal range, because it offers a little bit wider field of view, but I doubt that a kit lens class unit will be optically better. If it is, expect a 70-300mm VRII next year!

Mortuus: I'd be very surprised if it had a metal mount. For the price (B&H has it listed around 400 bucks), I wouldn't exactly expect pro-level construction. Probably closer in build quality to the 18-55 and 55-200.

I was wondering the same thing, especially since refurbed 70-300 can be had for less than the new 55-300.

iDunno - I think I can safely assume you are using a DX camera since you're considering the 55-300.

Since that is likely the case, and the worst "flaws" of the 70-300 are outside the coverage of a DX sensor (you did pay attention to the mm scale on the MTF charts, didn't you?) I think it is highly probable that the 70-300 will have equal to better image quality on DX cameras than the 55-300. Be that a /visible/ difference is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Considering the new 55-300 is cheaper i dont expect it to be any better at 300.. who knows and does it even have a metal mount?