@mariacyprusflor The D3100 camera body (without battery) weighs 453 grams. The 55-300mm lens weighs 580 grams, so the lens weighs more than the camera. The 55-200 weighs 335 grams, so it weighs less than the camera. Optically the two lenses are very similar, but the 55-300 is significantly larger and heavier. I love the lens, but if you don't need the extra 100mm of reach (and metal mount plate) you may want the 55-200 for your D3100. It's a personal choice! :)
Fair enough - it's your gear and you can treat it any way you like. It also depend on what you shoot. I shoot a lot of video, and have suffered lens damage from flying debris during, for example, car mount shots. I can envision other situations where a UV filter can protect the glass from damage. That said, I don't always have a filter on my lenses - I tend to use filters like lens caps, and remove them when I am concerned about achieving ultimate image sharpness.
It's your gear and you can treat it any way you like. If I was buying a used lens from someone, I'd prefer one that had been protected by a UV filter. ;-) I typically use UV filters like lens caps, and remove them when the going gets serious and I am concerned about absolute sharpness. Cheers!
I am beginning to agree with you on this issue, especially with telephoto lenses (for some reason, "pixel peeping" seems more important when dealing with images of some faraway animal or object). Now I usually keep the filter on the lens when in transit (this is when my gear might get scuffed), but remove it when shooting. I agree that the extra glass can compromise image quality (for sharpness pixel peepers, anyway). BTW, I am pretty lazy when it comes to cleaning my equipment. ;-)
@cmgoskate If you are concerned about cost and/or weight, get the 55-200. I like having the 55-300 but it weighs a LOT more...the 55-200 is a nice lens too.
@mariacyprusflor Look at the video at 4:10 and you will see the focal lengths with your own eyes. It all depends on what you are shooting. I have found the extra length sometimes useful for some subjects like birds & other wildlife. But you pay a price in extra lens weight & size! The 200mm is much easier to carry around all day.
@Moemay9 The 70-300mm weighs 200g more than the 55-300. With the latter you also obviously get the useful 55-70 focal range. So I chose the 55-300, no regrets.
I have this lens and agree with everything you said, great for zooming in on flowers from 3 meters, and blurring out the background whilst concentrating on the subject.
@movania89 At full telephoto (300mm) max aperture is f5.6. Yes, all photos in this video taken with a D5000. I have since bought a D7000 and the lens pairs nicely with the camera. I have captured motion successfully (for example, recently took shots at a drumline concert) by increasing shutter speed -- but that was in a well lit environment. I think you may have trouble in a poorly lit concert hall. But in this price range, your options are limited.
@idk510 I would probably pay a little extra and get the Nikon, especially if the difference is only $30. Nikon lenses usually hold their value a little better than Sigma, Tamron, etc. I have one Sigma lens (a wide angle_ - it's a good lens, but the Nikon equivalent cost about $350 more!
@Funnnnmusic VR means Vibration Reduction meaning if you take a pic or a video it will reduce blurriness(if taking a picture) and shaking when taking a video so you turn it on to stop that.
Nice video. Just bought this lens yesterday. Compared it in-store with the 200 Nikon and a Tamron. I am pretty sure the extra cost is fully justified. Thanks for posting.
thanks dude, really helped me to decide what lens to buy, specially when you talk about to be an enthusiastic photographer (and of course money is tight). Most of reviews make it seem that if you dont buy a $3000 lens then you are buying a crap lens. As I am a biology student I will use it a lot. So thanks for the help, and sorry for my english. Greetings from Argentina
I dont think you really need to keep a UV filter on all the time, that idea was just to come up with a new marketing gimmic to sell more camera equipment..
@jimmycornett Hi Jimmy, thanks for your comment (and congrats to your neice!). My brother has a D90 and loves it. I agree that the 70-300 is an excellent choice also. See you on the road someday. Roll Tide!
I have a NON VR 55-300 mm lens, and I'm surprised at how good the photos come out even if I may be shaking or even if there is shake form depressing the shutter,,,
Good review thanks for it. I am planning to buy this along with a D3100, my first DSLR. I have a Nikon F80 & a Nikkor AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 G lens. I am told (in reviews) a G lens is not compatible with the D3100 & G lens have other issues. I was hoping I could save by reusing my lens from the old camera.
These photos do not reflect how good the lens can be, we have very sharp images from this lens and they can be improved further with photoshop unsharp mask. The video may have affected the quality. I would recommend this lens for what it is as it is light and compliments the D5100 body that we have. If we want a light kit then we combine it with the 18 - 105mm lens as well. We have the pro Nikon lenses so we know the difference it is a great little lens.
mhm...some people say that this one is bad because of the 4.5 to 5.6, but i cant buy any lens about 800 $!!! Im a beginner and i think it would be a great lens for nature photography as you do (at daytime). Can i take this one? Please answer and help!!!
I got the 55-200, is it worth getting the 55-300 instead? In the video the difference between 200 and 300 doesn't seem as much as i expected. I also like to shoot wildlife and shoot a lot in 200
@TheAmiyakumar "If I advance any higher, this would be my career. And if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train." - Jim Halpert
Ugh, why do you recommend a uv filter, for means of protecting the front element? This is one of those tips I got in the beginning of my photography, and got scolded by semi-pros and 1 pro for using them. Now I shoot without, and my glass is just fine, and my images look cleaner. You have some nice wildlife shots :)
i have this lens and it is great for the money you spend on it. i got mine for 240.00 new. so really worth it. i got some great shots of the Moon. very clear Using the Nikon D300
I didn't catch if it has a motor in the lens, your 5100 does not have a motor in the camera, make sure you buy a "lens" with with a internal motor or you lose auto focus.
I want to get a lens for my d3100 but I am scared that I'm going to spend too much and it either have crappy quality or not even be compatible. I've looked on Amazon and found cheap (but nice reviewed) lens, but its back to the "What if it isn't compatible?" question. I take portrait shots and posed photography. I also take sports shots for a yearbook. The 18-55 lens isn't cutting it. Any suggestions for posed photography lens? Is this a good buy for the sports pics?
Can any one please help me out choosing a better telephoto zoom lens among these 2 if price is neglected Sigma 70-300mm f/4 - f/5.6 APO & Nikon Nikkor 55-300mm AF-S DX I'm a newbie & so it will be my first telephoto lens for experiment I have nikon D3100 with its stock 18-55mm lens
Hello there, are you familiar with "PhotoSFXart" (just do a Google search for it...)? On their website you will find a nice free video showing how you can shoot incredible photographs. It made it possible for Joe to take photos which leave you with that wow-effect whenever you look at them. It might work for you as well.
Hey, do you know "Photo SFXart Tricks" (just search on Google for it ...)? On their website you can watch a smart free video demonstrating how you can make outstanding photographs. This made it easier for Daniel to shoot photos that have that wow-effect any time you take a look at them. Perhaps it will help you too...
Eric Bartolo Optically the two lenses are pretty much the same in terms of image quality. The 55-200 is significantly smaller and lighter than the 55-300. But do you want that extra 100mm of reach? Only you can decide.
Long Long Honeymoon I have never used a 200mm before so I can't really say if its enough reach. Do you think it would be sufficient for wildlife photography, not small birds but larger, more dangerous animals such as crocodiles, whales, komodo, kangaroos etc? I'm going to Australia and also for New Zealand's mighty scenery. For low light,portraits etc I'll use my 35mm Also, do you have ideas what's been in improved in the new 55-200mm (the VRII)?
Eric Bartolo You have an intended use that helps make the decision a little easier. For an overseas trip, I think you will prefer carrying the 200mm. You will appreciate the smaller size and weight every time you use it or stow it in your pack. With regard to reach, we all want more reach (except maybe the guy with the 800mm f5.6). But the difference between 200mm and 300mm isn't as much as it sounds. And really, the skill of many wildlife photographers starts with getting closer to the animals - you can gain a lot of "reach" by donning camouflage and being stealthy.
Nice review gonna be getting this as it seems great for aviation Photography and afforable for a tight budget like me for 300AUD. nice review Btw but will it work with the nikon D3000
Bryan Chua A "faster" lens has a larger maximum aperture, which is represented by a smaller "f-stop" rating. In the world of telephoto zoom, an f2.8 is considered a pretty fast lens.
I am considering getting myself into fotography, especially landscapes and wildlife I guess, how does the combo of Nikon D3200 and the VR 55-300 mm apply to that? I guess I would take my camera along on treks, so if you know lighter combo's please let me know (same capabilities though). Thanks
This lens is great for wildlife, but for landscapes I think you will want a wider focal length. If you want a lighter combo, look to Micro 4/3, Sony NEX, and Fuji mirrorless options.
It won't give you any more reach on the long end, and the DX lens gives you 55-70 on the wide end. However the FX lens would be useful if you decide to go full frame in the future.
@RolandBP My pleasure. Glad to be a help!
@juanmarex Thanks, you will enjoy the lens. My wife and I love Argentina! We visited Buenos Aires a few years ago. We want to go back someday. Cheers!
My pleasure, glad you liked it. I will try to do more lens reviews (this gives me a great excuse to buy more lenses, ha ha). Cheers!
@mariacyprusflor The D3100 camera body (without battery) weighs 453 grams. The 55-300mm lens weighs 580 grams, so the lens weighs more than the camera. The 55-200 weighs 335 grams, so it weighs less than the camera. Optically the two lenses are very similar, but the 55-300 is significantly larger and heavier. I love the lens, but if you don't need the extra 100mm of reach (and metal mount plate) you may want the 55-200 for your D3100. It's a personal choice! :)
Fair enough - it's your gear and you can treat it any way you like. It also depend on what you shoot. I shoot a lot of video, and have suffered lens damage from flying debris during, for example, car mount shots. I can envision other situations where a UV filter can protect the glass from damage. That said, I don't always have a filter on my lenses - I tend to use filters like lens caps, and remove them when I am concerned about achieving ultimate image sharpness.
It's your gear and you can treat it any way you like. If I was buying a used lens from someone, I'd prefer one that had been protected by a UV filter. ;-) I typically use UV filters like lens caps, and remove them when the going gets serious and I am concerned about absolute sharpness. Cheers!
I am beginning to agree with you on this issue, especially with telephoto lenses (for some reason, "pixel peeping" seems more important when dealing with images of some faraway animal or object). Now I usually keep the filter on the lens when in transit (this is when my gear might get scuffed), but remove it when shooting. I agree that the extra glass can compromise image quality (for sharpness pixel peepers, anyway). BTW, I am pretty lazy when it comes to cleaning my equipment. ;-)
@cmgoskate If you are concerned about cost and/or weight, get the 55-200. I like having the 55-300 but it weighs a LOT more...the 55-200 is a nice lens too.
Yes, no problems. It has an internal focusing motor.
Yes, no problems. This lens will work great on the D7100 (I've used it on mine).
@mariacyprusflor Look at the video at 4:10 and you will see the focal lengths with your own eyes. It all depends on what you are shooting. I have found the extra length sometimes useful for some subjects like birds & other wildlife. But you pay a price in extra lens weight & size! The 200mm is much easier to carry around all day.
@Moemay9 The 70-300mm weighs 200g more than the 55-300. With the latter you also obviously get the useful 55-70 focal range. So I chose the 55-300, no regrets.
@fabaloo86 Thanks! The 55-300mm lens is really great. If you are comfortable with the added weight, you will love it.
Yes - it works with all Nikon DX cameras because it has a built-in focusing motor.
@peckerdecker Thanks! Appreciate the positive feedback. Hmmm, now I need to get a 24mm f1.4 lens to review... :)
Thanks man.. I was confused between 55--200 mm and 55--300 mm .. & now this review helped me out! I must say, one of the best lens reviews. :)
Thank you for this - had all the information I wanted, it was clear, concise, no waffling, no nonsense. Thank you.
I have this lens and agree with everything you said, great for zooming in on flowers from 3 meters, and blurring out the background whilst concentrating on the subject.
@movania89 At full telephoto (300mm) max aperture is f5.6. Yes, all photos in this video taken with a D5000. I have since bought a D7000 and the lens pairs nicely with the camera. I have captured motion successfully (for example, recently took shots at a drumline concert) by increasing shutter speed -- but that was in a well lit environment. I think you may have trouble in a poorly lit concert hall. But in this price range, your options are limited.
@idk510 I would probably pay a little extra and get the Nikon, especially if the difference is only $30. Nikon lenses usually hold their value a little better than Sigma, Tamron, etc. I have one Sigma lens (a wide angle_ - it's a good lens, but the Nikon equivalent cost about $350 more!
I love my 55-300mm - I have taken a lot of great photos with it from people to wildlife. Love it.
@Funnnnmusic VR means Vibration Reduction meaning if you take a pic or a video it will reduce blurriness(if taking a picture) and shaking when taking a video so you turn it on to stop that.
Yes, the DX crop factor is 1.5x. So, 300mm x 1.5 = 450mm.
@maraneelo I haven't had any problem with zoom creep.
Great video. I have a Nikkor 55-300 and it is excellent. Works as advertised and didnt break the bank.
shot very well... and it is one of the best example of a true review.....
@juniorceaser This lens has its own focus motor, so it should autofocus with the D60.
I like Sigma lienses, but I'd probably stick with Nikon on this one. You might consider the Sigma 18-250mm if you want a "superzoom."
Nice video. Just bought this lens yesterday. Compared it in-store with the 200 Nikon and a Tamron. I am pretty sure the extra cost is fully justified. Thanks for posting.
@ferdyanchandra How do you like it? I'm happy with mine.
thanks dude, really helped me to decide what lens to buy, specially when you talk about to be an enthusiastic photographer (and of course money is tight). Most of reviews make it seem that if you dont buy a $3000 lens then you are buying a crap lens. As I am a biology student I will use it a lot. So thanks for the help, and sorry for my english. Greetings from Argentina
I used this lens to my nikon d5500. Tried this when i attend to my nikon portrait training, results are awesome.
Great video, just picked the 55-300mm off amazon for £180 new, cant complain at that price...all ready for NYC on monday
@JesseR1992 Works brilliantly with the D7000! I use this combo frequently.
@416asshole Yeah, I usually do so just to protect the glass from scratches.
Love mine. I never understood putting a filter on the end of a nice lens just to protect the front glass.
Those pictures are outstanding! (considering the lens quality) Beautiful animals pictures, and excellent review for photo enthusiasts. Cheers!
@DJChris718 Thanks for the heads up... that's a killer deal!
I just got this lens at target for $249.99, the sale ends soon so take advantage of it!
GREAT review
very well explained and narrated
best wishes
PS wonderfully modelled as well
I dont think you really need to keep a UV filter on all the time, that idea was just to come up with a new marketing gimmic to sell more camera equipment..
hells yessss!!!!
got mine today!! total awesomeness!!
Two words: Excellent review!!!
@walkaboutgroup the diferent is very small i take the 55-200 thanks for your help
@jimmycornett Hi Jimmy, thanks for your comment (and congrats to your neice!). My brother has a D90 and loves it. I agree that the 70-300 is an excellent choice also. See you on the road someday. Roll Tide!
If you ever come through Bristol, Tn check out Shadrack Campground, my wife and I work there. Love to me you all sometime.
@olivernapolitano Check out the price of the 300mm F2.8 lens and you'll feel better about it! ;)
Great review and great photos.
I has confirmed my decison to buy the 55-300 fro my D5500.
It's a fine lens and an excellent choice for your D5500.
Digmen1 I would I have it on my d5200 and it's awesome
Just got one off Andromada "used" for $180. I'm really enjoying it so far!
I have a NON VR 55-300 mm lens, and I'm surprised at how good the photos come out even if I may be shaking or even if there is shake form depressing the shutter,,,
hi , iv got the same camera as you and yes the 55-300mm nikkor lens is compatible with the d3100 :} its really good for sports aswell
Good review thanks for it. I am planning to buy this along with a D3100, my first DSLR. I have a Nikon F80 & a Nikkor AF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 G lens. I am told (in reviews) a G lens is not compatible with the D3100 & G lens have other issues. I was hoping I could save by reusing my lens from the old camera.
These photos do not reflect how good the lens can be, we have very sharp images from this lens and they can be improved further with photoshop unsharp mask. The video may have affected the quality. I would recommend this lens for what it is as it is light and compliments the D5100 body that we have. If we want a light kit then we combine it with the 18 - 105mm lens as well. We have the pro Nikon lenses so we know the difference it is a great little lens.
mhm...some people say that this one is bad because of the 4.5 to 5.6, but i cant buy any lens about 800 $!!! Im a beginner and i think it would be a great lens for nature photography as you do (at daytime). Can i take this one? Please answer and help!!!
I got the 55-200, is it worth getting the 55-300 instead?
In the video the difference between 200 and 300 doesn't seem as much as i expected.
I also like to shoot wildlife and shoot a lot in 200
the D lens, not G. the G is compatible for all DSLRs
Hi, is this compatible with D5300? Excellent review though.
@TheAmiyakumar "If I advance any higher, this would be my career. And if this were my career, I'd have to throw myself in front of a train." - Jim Halpert
Ugh, why do you recommend a uv filter, for means of protecting the front element? This is one of those tips I got in the beginning of my photography, and got scolded by semi-pros and 1 pro for using them. Now I shoot without, and my glass is just fine, and my images look cleaner. You have some nice wildlife shots :)
The lens comes with a lens cap!! Wow!
I'm happy this lens ......I took a lot of great pictures ..... lovely, lovely lens on a budget!!!!
would u suggest this lens for general telephoto lens and some amateur sports photography? or should i look at the tamron 70 300 vc?
yeay,i just got this lens today...a great lens but i dont like the hood that comes with this lens
Awesome, this was just the review I needed, I have decided, thanks!! :)
It does, I also have the D3100 and this lens.
@walkaboutgroup .... i know that the nikkor 18-200mm got a zoom creep..... how about this lens? do it has same problem? thanks
hi from the two lens 55-200 and 55-300 which is better for the nikon d3100 i mean the diferent is big or small?
what is the quality difference between this and the 70-300 plz ?
Im planning to buy this lens for nikon d3200,is this lens work great?please give me some advice..
Well explained and informative review, good job!
i have this lens and it is great for the money you spend on it. i got mine for 240.00 new. so really worth it. i got some great shots of the Moon. very clear Using the Nikon D300
Would this lens suffice to shoot a shortfilm with giving quality image or would it be recommended to purchase something more recent and advanced
The auto focus no longer works on my lens (the same as the lens above). What can I do to fix it.
Sandi Aldridge I’m having same issue, I found out the AF gets jammed. You would have to open it and unjam it
I didn't catch if it has a motor in the lens, your 5100 does not have a motor in the camera, make sure you buy a "lens" with with a internal motor or you lose auto focus.
I believe all AF-S and AF-P lens have internal motors
@ferdyanchandra how much..?
I want to get a lens for my d3100 but I am scared that I'm going to spend too much and it either have crappy quality or not even be compatible.
I've looked on Amazon and found cheap (but nice reviewed) lens, but its back to the "What if it isn't compatible?" question.
I take portrait shots and posed photography. I also take sports shots for a yearbook. The 18-55 lens isn't cutting it. Any suggestions for posed photography lens? Is this a good buy for the sports pics?
Can You explain me something. Is this lens work like 450mm because the crop factor. Or is maximum 300mm because that lens is DX???
What would be a modern upgrade from this lens?
This lens really good for shooting video?
At 2:50 lol :-) You can't remove cover in counterclockwise, yoy have to go clockwise!
Excellent and very helpful video!
Can any one please help me out choosing a better telephoto zoom lens among these 2 if price is neglected
Sigma 70-300mm f/4 - f/5.6 APO
&
Nikon Nikkor 55-300mm AF-S DX
I'm a newbie & so it will be my first telephoto lens for experiment
I have nikon D3100 with its stock 18-55mm lens
nice video.....this lens compatable with nikon D3200? thanks
Hello there, are you familiar with "PhotoSFXart" (just do a Google search for it...)? On their website you will find a nice free video showing how you can shoot incredible photographs. It made it possible for Joe to take photos which leave you with that wow-effect whenever you look at them. It might work for you as well.
would it be better to get this lens or the sigma 70-300 apo one??
Great review. Thanks!
Vannillia, it is compatible with D3200.
Thanks for your comment!
which is better for my D3400, nikon 55-200mm or nikon 70-300mm
For wider, 55-200mm, extra reach 55-300mm
Hey, do you know "Photo SFXart Tricks" (just search on Google for it ...)? On their website you can watch a smart free video demonstrating how you can make outstanding photographs. This made it easier for Daniel to shoot photos that have that wow-effect any time you take a look at them. Perhaps it will help you too...
@dogracha93 it is utterly impossible (given that you are not using a third party lens)
@walkaboutgroup the 100mm is big diferent?
It's a pity Nikon don't have the 55-250mm like Canon. I'm confused which one I should buy for my travels to capture wildlife.
Eric Bartolo Optically the two lenses are pretty much the same in terms of image quality. The 55-200 is significantly smaller and lighter than the 55-300. But do you want that extra 100mm of reach? Only you can decide.
Long Long Honeymoon I have never used a 200mm before so I can't really say if its enough reach. Do you think it would be sufficient for wildlife photography, not small birds but larger, more dangerous animals such as crocodiles, whales, komodo, kangaroos etc? I'm going to Australia and also for New Zealand's mighty scenery. For low light,portraits etc I'll use my 35mm
Also, do you have ideas what's been in improved in the new 55-200mm (the VRII)?
Eric Bartolo You have an intended use that helps make the decision a little easier. For an overseas trip, I think you will prefer carrying the 200mm. You will appreciate the smaller size and weight every time you use it or stow it in your pack. With regard to reach, we all want more reach (except maybe the guy with the 800mm f5.6). But the difference between 200mm and 300mm isn't as much as it sounds. And really, the skill of many wildlife photographers starts with getting closer to the animals - you can gain a lot of "reach" by donning camouflage and being stealthy.
@walkaboutgroup I like lens size... because my SLR D5000 too, with this lens, my SLR looks more large... LOL!!
Does this lens have a focus ring in it. If no, how can we manually focus an object???
Yes, it has a focus ring (a small one).
Thanks Long Long Honeymoon... :)
This lens is for Nikon D5100?
For birding Hawks up in the air 150 yards is this the best choice? Better lens or more zoom? Is their a somewhat compact 500-600mm alternative?
+intercooler2 look for my nikkor 200-500 review on RUclips 👍
Nice review gonna be getting this as it seems great for aviation Photography and afforable for a tight budget like me for 300AUD. nice review Btw but will it work with the nikon D3000
how do you know what is a faster lens compared to a slower one? is it the apeture?
Bryan Chua A "faster" lens has a larger maximum aperture, which is represented by a smaller "f-stop" rating. In the world of telephoto zoom, an f2.8 is considered a pretty fast lens.
i m going to buy nikon zoom lens 70-300 af not vr lens its around 6000 indian rupees. so its good to buy i check it at Amazon . com
I am considering getting myself into fotography, especially landscapes and wildlife I guess, how does the combo of Nikon D3200 and the VR 55-300 mm apply to that? I guess I would take my camera along on treks, so if you know lighter combo's please let me know (same capabilities though). Thanks
This lens is great for wildlife, but for landscapes I think you will want a wider focal length. If you want a lighter combo, look to Micro 4/3, Sony NEX, and Fuji mirrorless options.
can i put it on the D7100?
Will an fx 70-300 give a further reach than the dx 55-300 on my d5500?
It won't give you any more reach on the long end, and the DX lens gives you 55-70 on the wide end. However the FX lens would be useful if you decide to go full frame in the future.
Thanks for the reply! I have always thought that dx lenses marked the 35mm equivalent on the lens but I must have been mistaken!