How does the Nikon 55-300mm VR compare with the 55-200mm VR on a D5100?
Asked 3/26/2014
3 views
2 answers
0
I use a Nikon D5100 and currently have the 18-55mm kit lens. I previously owned the 55-200mm VR and liked it, with no major complaints.
I’m considering buying the Nikon 55-300mm VR. How does it compare to the 55-200mm VR in image quality and performance? I’ve read that the 55-300mm can be “slow” — is it actually slower than the 55-200mm VR?
I plan to stay with Nikon lenses only, and I’d prefer not to move up to the 70-300mm VR because I also want to buy a prime lens soon.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
3
While DXoMark's scores are never the only thing to go on, the general consensus of their results matches up with conventional wisdom, though not by as much as would normally be expected. Since the 55-300 covers a longer total range than the 70-200 it pays a slight price in overall image quality.
When wide, the 300 mm seems to suffer particularly strongly in corner and edge sharpness, while center holds its own pretty well. As you zoom to 200mm, the 55-200 falls apart compared to the 55-300mm, even for corners and edges. However, on the 300, everything becomes an unclear mess by the time you get to 300mm. You can see the comparisons on The Digital Picture here.
The 300mm version measured slower from 55-100mm, but interesting is faster for the rest of the range in terms of actual light transmitted.
Overall, it looks like the 55-300mm version is very good for what it is. While it has some drawbacks in IQ compared to the 55-200mm, it isn't by as much as I'd normally expect and it actually beats the 55-200mm in some regards.
Originally by user11392. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11392
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The 55-300mm VR is generally a reasonable step up if you want more reach, but it makes some trade-offs.
Compared with the 55-200mm VR, the 55-300mm covers a longer range, and that usually costs a bit in overall image quality. Based on the comparisons mentioned, the 55-300mm is weaker in edge and corner sharpness at the wide end, though center sharpness holds up fairly well. Around 200mm, the 55-300mm actually compares better than the 55-200mm, whose performance drops off more there. At 300mm, however, image quality on the 55-300mm declines noticeably.
As for being “slow,” that can mean either autofocus speed or maximum aperture. From the provided info, the 55-300mm measured slower from roughly 55-100mm, but beyond that it was actually faster in terms of transmitted light. So it isn’t simply worse across the board.
If you liked the 55-200mm and mainly want extra reach for occasional use, the 55-300mm VR is a sensible Nikon-only choice. Just keep expectations realistic at 300mm, where sharpness suffers the most.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX worth buying if I already have the 18-55mm kit lens?
Will a Tamron 16-300mm match the image quality of Nikon 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses?
Which budget telephoto lens is the best fit for a Nikon D5100: Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon 55-300 VR, or Tamron 70-300?
Which Nikon DX zoom is best for handheld indoor and general use: 18-200mm VR or a two-lens kit?
What lens should I buy next for a Nikon D3200 beginner kit?