[nandadevieast]

Hi,

Since Markus is not doing long promised test of 55-300, allow me to not wait anymore and ask this...

I am talking about the optical quality...is there anything to be gained by going 70-300 route?

Regards,

Anurag

[JJ_SO]

What do you expect from a lens with bigger focal range at smaller price? Sold as additional kit lens? Don't blame Markus for not testIng cheapo lenses, just to get one or 1.5 stars he has to pull the lens through the same procedure and for what? To confirm it's weaknesses, soft corners, CA, soft at long end, vignetting and distortion on "wide end"? There are more interesting lenses. I do understand him not to waste time for kit lenses. Although some of them perform well, but the 55-300 does hardly count to them.

[nandadevieast]

No issues. 

Idea was not to blame him, but to provoke him into testing this lens. 

As for lens itself, some of us do use cheap gear

anurag

[balacau]

Hi,

Since Markus is not doing long promised test of 55-300, allow me to not wait anymore and ask this...

I am talking about the optical quality...is there anything to be gained by going 70-300 route?

Regards,

Anurag

 

In all honesty, going from the specifications on the Nikon lens alone, it would seem to be closer comparison-wise to the Sony 55-300mm SAM lens.  Indeed I wouldn't mind seeing the two compared, the reviews on the Sony at least are quite favourable apart from some reporting a slightly slow focusing speed due to the none-IF design.

 

The Tamron 70-300mm (assuming you mean the USD one?) is a considerably larger lens often sized up against Sony's more expensive but very capable 70-300G, whilst both the Nikon and Sony 55-300 lenses seem to be marketed for either someone who is just beginning their journey in the world of dSLR's or someone who is looking for a compact, light-weight and decent (performance-wise) telephoto zoom.

[mst]

Well, in all honesty: for most Nikon shooters, the Sony lens is not an attractive option

-- Markus

[mst]

There are more interesting lenses. I do understand him not to waste time for kit lenses.

Surprisingly, it's the "boring" lenses that keep photozone alive I have to admit that there are more interesting lenses to review, but what you and me consider interesting are not the reviews that attract the majority of readers.

-- Markus

[mst]

Idea was not to blame him, but to provoke him into testing this lens.

It's not about testing that lens (did that) but writing the review Of course I understand that doesn't make a lot of difference to you

My personal feeling, though: I'd probably rather go for the Tamron 70-300 VC or Nikon 70-300 VR. But that's not more than a "feeling" so far, which I can't prove with numbers.

It seems to me as if the 55-300 VR is softer at the long end than those FX lenses.

If I were in the market for a more compact zoom lens (the 70-300 lenses are a bit bulky already), I'd rather choose the 55-200 VR instead.

-- Markus

[balacau]

Well, in all honesty: for most Nikon shooters, the Sony lens is not an attractive option


-- Markus

 

Oh I quite agree.  B)

It just seems that the Sony lens is more comparable, size and specification-wise at least.  I'm sure the Nikon lens is no slouch as far as performance goes.

[felix]

My personal feeling, though: I'd probably rather go for the Tamron 70-300 VC or Nikon 70-300 VR. But that's not more than a "feeling" so far, which I can't prove with numbers.


It seems to me as if the 55-300 VR is softer at the long end than those FX lenses.


If I were in the market for a more compact zoom lens (the 70-300 lenses are a bit bulky already), I'd rather choose the 55-200 VR instead.


-- Markus

 

I own the Tamron 70-300 VC and it is indeed quite bulky. It's a great lens, especially with respect to its price, but I rarely take it with me due to it's size and weight (can't imagine people voluntarily carrying 70-200/2.8s   ). In retrospective, I agree with you that the 55-200VR would have been a better choice for DX (except maybe for larger bodies like the D7xxx or D300).