[oppitronic]

I'll be happy to see the reviews.

(I hope it is allowed to say this here: A guy named AndyE posted some tests with the 55-300 against a few other lenses in the NFF - and the 55-300 is not the worst, depending on what you want to shoot)



I can't make any meaningful tests. But I did a personal comparison based on "stomach feelings" between a D90 + 70-300VR and my D5000 + 55-300VR. And I don't see much of a difference in picture quality. I even find my 55-300 at f8 and 300mm sharper.



Honestly, if I would have a D90 or 300 and would not worry about the size and weight, I would choose the 70-300VR just because it feels better.



But with a D5000 (or similar small D40, D3100, D5100...) and an overall small and lightweight equipment that I did choose intentionally, the 55-300VR is a much better fit.

If you don't need the 300mm and would be ok with 200mm, then take the even cheaper 55-200VR, because it has about the same optical quality. In my opinion it is even sharper at 200mm. (I have both. The 55-200VR makes a pretty decent "Makro lens" with a cheap Raynox 150 in front)

I only "needed" the 55-300mm, because for taking a few bird pictures 200mm was just to short and 300mm is the longest I could get for low price.



(if picture links are not wanted, I'll remove them right away - pls let me know)



ISO3200, f6.3, 300mm, horrifying settings, still ok





ISO200, f8, 300mm, with good light and f8 no worries





ISO400, f8, 300mm, it is even suitable for close-ups with built-in flash