Bargain lenses for Nikon: AF-S 55-300mm F/4.5-5.6 G ED

 Update March 2011

I reviewed this lens late last year and found it performed better than its reputation suggested. It was close to $400 at the time but you can now find it for $100 less, which makes it a bargain. No other 55 or 70-300mm tele-zoom with VR sells for anywhere near $300. And no other 55/70-300mm tele-zoom with VR is this compact.

After I reviewed the Nikon 55-300, I ended up buying the Tamron 70-300mm USD VC, which was getting rave reviews and which wasn't much more money. Yes, the autofocus was faster, and usually spot on. And the image quality was a tad better, producing files that were a fraction sharper with more punchy colours.

The only problem was that I felt stupid when I walked around with it on my camera, the thing was so big. I felt like a paparazzi, probably looked like one as well. The hood alone was the size of a Nikon 18-105 lens. The woman I love kept making jokes about it, or about me with it on my camera.

So I sold it and bought the Nikon 55-300mm VR for $300 from Camera Action, a camera house in Melbourne that disposes of surplus kit on eBay http://preview.tinyurl.com/4vennvu

It was the right decision for me. I like handy photogear so a camera is always handy when I need it. This is a lens that won't make you look like a show-off, and that won't weigh you down. You can take it with you anywhere, even in a smallish bag. And because it doesn't cost that much, you can even take it to the beach without too much fuss.

This shot was taken at 240mm

And this one fully extended to 300mm

Back to the original piece:

Just filling a gap or raising the bar?

Imagine you had an outdoor wedding to photograph and needed a new lens to do it. That wasn’t what happened here but I live near the rotunda by the harbour at Balmoral that makes a very popular venue for weddings. As I rounded the corner today to test this lens, I saw the flowers on the ground and thought I’d missed it. But I hadn’t missed all of it. The photo shoot was still in progress.

 
Not bad in an emergency

A pro wouldn’t buy a lens like this, a cheap plastic $400 item that isn’t quite in the rank of the serious tools they like to flash at newly-weds. I just hope the pro here got photos that are as lovely as these taken from a distance. It helps to have a pretty bride, and very pretty bridesmaids, and I thank them for posing so nicely.

First impressions

I wasn’t expecting too much of this lens after reading the few mixed reviews that are out on this very new Nikon instrument. It’s as though the majority of the usual sites decided it was a yawn long before it was time to call it a night. You know, another obvious cheap plastic lens from Nikon, so what? They churn them out like other companies produce plastic toys, and yes it’s made in China – heaven forbid.

Just hold the phone a moment. This lens may be plastic but it’s about as sharp as it gets and the colours are true.

Nikon has a history of making cheap lenses with superb optics, the 55-200 this lens replaces is proof of that. I’ve set up an image gallery for the 55-300 with a few larger photos - look in the right hand-column under pages and you'll see the 55-300 page there. Please click on the images in the gallery, and those in this review, to see larger files.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/26834/nikon-55-300mm-review/

The goods

This lens is designed for cropped sensor DX cameras. Here’s the short list:

• 123mm in length, and 76.5mm in diameter
• Weight is 580g
• Filter size is 58mm
• 1 HRI (High Refractive Index) Lens Element
• 2 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) Elements
• Super Integrated Coating (SIC)
• Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
• VR II image stabilization, which Nikon claims allows ‘handheld shooting at up to 4 shutter speeds slower than would otherwise be possible.’
• Tripod Detection Mode
• Minimum focus distance to 4.6 feet
• Rounded 9-Blade Diaphragm

Construction

Build quality is better than expected. This is quite a solid lens, much heavier than the one it replaces and about 3 cm longer. It even has a metal mount. The matt plastic finish doesn’t look or feel tacky, and the focus and zoom rings move with gentle resistance. Unlike many recent consumer lenses, the focus ring is up front and the zoom ring behind it. You really can't complain about the build quality at the price point of this lens.

Handling

The size of this lens is just on the right side of practical for travelling/walking about. Its bigger brother, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR, is definitely on the wrong side. 20 extra mm in length, 5 more in diameter and 200 grams more heft make for an unwieldy instrument. This lens is easier to pick up and carry, and it fits into normal size slots in bags. Still, it would be perhaps be more at home on a D90/7000 than the D3000 it’s pictured on here.

Two pretty flimsy switches control AF/MF and VR. There are no normal and active VR settings. You can’t use the focus ring when the switch is set to AF, which won’t worry most weekend shooters but an override option would be nice. The extension lens barrel and focus ring move during autofocus since this is not an IF lens. Otherwise, the lens handles well and its weight and size make it easy to keep it steady on a reasonable-size body.

   

Performance

The first thing you notice is how smooth and silent the AF is. Its operation is carpet-slipper soft. The next thing you notice is how slow it is. I suspect it feels slower than it is because of that soft action, and the good news is that it works at the same speed in poor light. It’s fine in most circumstances but, if you’re a mad sports action shooter, you might need to look at a different lens.

The second reason why action shooters might look elsewhere is that the fastest aperture is f/4.5. Yes, lens speed is no longer so crucial with current DSLRs offering dizzy ISO settings, but you get better quality photos at lower ISOs. No problems shooting the kids’ soccer game on a bright summer Saturday, though. Except for the slow AF.

Image Quality

Photos are pretty sharp most of the time, so clearly the VR is highly effective and AF is accurate. That means more keepers. Overall, IQ is good for the money: colours are pretty accurate, but skin tones aren’t perfect – a bit orangey on the wedding shots where the sun caught the faces – but this lens is not alone with that problem. Colours are superb in the shade, and the lens is good for flowers and portraits where it delivers a decent bokeh.

Summary

If you can get this lens for a decent price as part of a camera kit, or when the price comes down to below $400 once the initial sales drop off, this is a pretty good option. The things I liked most were its good optics, effective VR and its size and weight, both on the right side of unwieldy. The slow AF is a grumble but only if you shoot a lot of fast-moving action, but there are no consumer 55-300s with VR that aren't compromised in some way.

Test Image Gallery

Under Pages in the margin on the right - Nikon 55-300mm VR. Click on the images for a larger version.

Reviews

http://www.photoreview.com.au/Nikon/reviews/cameraaccessories/afs-dx-nikkor-55300mm-f4556-g-ed-vr-lens.aspx

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-300mm.htm

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Nikon-AFS-DX-Nikkor-55300mm-f4556G-ED-VR-14570

User reviews

http://lens-reviews.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-55-300mm-f4.5-5.6-G-ED-VR.html



Comments

[Monica Pileggi]

How does this lens compare to the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD? Which is a better lens IQ wise? Does one beat the other a 300mm?

[Kim Brebach]

Monica, the Tamron has a slight edge in Image Quality (it's a fraction sharper at the long end), and it's AF is faster. Some say its vibration control is better but I couldn't tell the difference.

The Tamron is a much bigger lens, longer, fatter and 200 g heavier. Makes you look like a paparazzi.
:-)
Have a look at the current entries in my blog - there are a couple of shots of a seagull taken with the Nikon, shows what you can do with this lens.
Kim

[Monica]

Thanks Kim for your comments. Just another question if you don't mind. In looking over the photos I've taken, 98% are in the 120mm to 200mm range. I had read that the Nikon does a better job IQ in the 70 to 200mm range while the Tamron is best at the 200 to 300mm range. If this is true, I'm wondering if the Nikon would be a better fit for me. Would appreciate your thoughts...and will look through your blog too.

[Monica]

PS: I should clarify I'm talking about the the Nikon 70-300mm VR versus the Tamron, "I had read that the Nikon does a better job IQ in the 70 to 200mm range while the Tamron is best at the 200 to 300mm range."

[Kim Brebach]

I did answer your questions, Monica, but I see that the typepad system seems to have lost the answers. If you're looking at the Nikon 70-300 VR, be aware that it's the same size and weight as the Tamron. The reviews suggest thatb the Tamron is sharper over the the 200-300mm range.
Kim

[Monica]

Hi Kim, yes I read your answer in the comparison of the Nikkon 55-300 and Tamron 70-300.

My new question was comparing the Tamron and Nikon 70-300. I’d like to ask: If my main photography is between 70-200mm, should I get the Nikon 70-300? Reviews state the Niken does a better job between 70-200mm (poorly above 200mm) while Tamron does a better job on the upper end – as you stated, “Tamron is sharper over the the 200-300mm range.”

Thanks!!

[Kim Brebach]

Actually, if your main working range is between 70 and 200, I'd get the Nikon 55-200 VR. It's cheaper and smaller and sharp as a tack.
Kim