55-300mm or 70-300mm Lens?

Brock_Samson

Let me start by saying I'm extremely new to the DSLR world, and even though I haven't spent much time with my D5100, I know I want a higher powered lens for some wildlife photos.

That said, I've come across these two lenses and was wondering what the primary difference between them is, if they'll be fully compatible with my camera, and what differences in my photo's I'd notice between the two of them.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=USA&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=729938

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_AF_S_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

Adelphos

I had the 55-200mm and got the 70-300mm to replace it. It is a bit more hefty, but well worth it in my opinion. I use that lens a lot, specifically for wildlife. I would recommend it over the other option, the 55-300mm. If you do get the bottom of the line lens, you will grow out of it sooner. Get the best lens you can afford and it will be cheaper than getting a cheap one, then trying to sell it so you can get the one you should have. Ask me how I know. :)

GerardH

The 70-300mm is generally considered the better lens, but the 55-300mm surprised reviewers by how good of a lens you got for the money. I have the 55-300 and it's a bit soft on the long end of its focal length, but it's tack sharp inside of 200mm -- which somewhat true with the 70-300mm. The 55-300mm auto-focus is noticeably slower than the 70-300mm and its VR takes a bit to kick in, but optically it doesn't give up too much in comparison to its more expensive counterpart. All that said, if money isn't an issue, go for the 70-300mm.

Here's a good website (see here) that you can compare different lenses at variable focal lengths and apertures.

Chedyus

I have the 55-300mm lens. Autofocus is fast, VR works perfect and it's very sharp. I am very happy when I use this lens.