Tamron 70-300mm USM vs Nikon 55-300mm ED VR

ßlåçk Pærl

ßlåçk Pærl

Member
Time to get a 300mm (of course for distant subjects including wildlife photography)

Last year, I was so keen to buy a Tamron/ Sigma 70-300 DI LD with macro feature which was/ is the cheapest lens ever introduced. It would give me a good 300mm range as well as macro (not interested in macro that much). But then I went through the reviews only to find that since that's a low cost lens, the lens does not compliments either low lights or steady frame at full length. I wasn't even satisfied by the photograph quality from them. I wanted to go for a decent one (not going far than my budget)

After much research over the last couple of months, I have shortlisted two 300mm lenses to chose any one (can't afford beyond this). My research material is all based upon technical details, build, quality, price etc. However, I couldn't find much of the review from them who already used it for a year or so. I feel, new bride always looks prettier than ever. So, I would like to know if your relation to any of these lenses have been for some time more than soon, I could get some real photography review (on motor noise, AF speed, Manual focus, sharpness, frindgeness, handling, etc.).

Thanks.
 
hensil

hensil

Guru
Disclaimer : I haven't used the Tamron 70-300 USM lens.
However, I have used the Nikon 55-300 VR and can say its an very average lens.
On the other hand I have heard lots of praises of Tamron 70-300 and that its even better than Nikon 70-300 VR. That's a big deal because I know (and experienced) Nikon 70-300 VR is one of the best in that range.
I hope someone with actual experience chip in. Even then, the I'd recommend Tamron over Nikon 55-300 VR.
Henry
 
ßlåçk Pærl

ßlåçk Pærl

Member
hensil said:
Disclaimer : I haven't used the Tamron 70-300 USM lens.
However, I have used the Nikon 55-300 VR and can say its an very average lens.
On the other hand I have heard lots of praises of Tamron 70-300 and that its even better than Nikon 70-300 VR. That's a big deal because I know (and experienced) Nikon 70-300 VR is one of the best in that range.
I hope someone with actual experience chip in. Even then, the I'd recommend Tamron over Nikon 55-300 VR.
Henry
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing me the favor. Since you have used Nikon 55-300 VR, I would like to ask few more questions regarding the same. Hope to get some in-depth review of this lens. Thanks again..

  • With which body are you using this beast? (I have D5100)
  • How it performs after 5:30PM these days? Does it grains too much (at which ISO) If possible, can you provide any of your shots you made with different ISO in low light?
  • Not sure if the mount is metallic or plastic.
  • Since it does not have a focus meter, did you happened to be in trouble because of that (while in manual focus)
  • I came to know that the vibration control in this lens works in two parts. One when the shutter is half pressed and finally when it's flashed. Does that makes a significant difference while panning, or shooting birds in flight or any speedy moving object for that matter?
  • Did you ever tried filming by this? If yes, what fps did you shot and of which kind (street/ indoor/ wildlife) and were you satisfied with it to call it a bingo!?
 
BHOOTER RAJA

BHOOTER RAJA

Chalo .......let's go.
I have used 55-300 and 70-300 of nikon make. I love the 70-300 mm very much. Its build quality, picture quality, macro capability are awesome ( within the price range of course. )
55-300 is all plastic. 70-300 is an FX lens and has metal mount.
Yes I also read good reviews of Tamron 70-300 mm but all this lenses will fail miserably at low light.
In good sunlight Nikon 70-300 mm can produce fantastic result.
Please increase your budget a little and go for Nikon 70-300 mm VR.
 
ßlåçk Pærl

ßlåçk Pærl

Member
BHOOTER RAJA said:
I have used 55-300 and 70-300 of nikon make. I love the 70-300 mm very much. Its build quality, picture quality, macro capability are awesome ( within the price range of course. )
55-300 is all plastic. 70-300 is an FX lens and has metal mount.
Yes I also read good reviews of Tamron 70-300 mm but all this lenses will fail miserably at low light.
In good sunlight Nikon 70-300 mm can produce fantastic result.
Please increase your budget a little and go for Nikon 70-300 mm VR.
Click to expand...

Thanks for dropping in. I really can't go beyond 25k at the moment, and I believe if I delay, I would be at square one again. Yes, Nikkor 70-300mm IF-ED has to be a wonderful lens compared to 55-300. Since paying more, the build quality and performance justifies.

When I come to compare between Nikon 55-300 and Tamron 70-300, at least technically (because I am yet awaiting an in-depth usage review) I find Tamron holding the ground. I don't want to be biased hence asking for more usage reviews so that I could play a fair deal. Just in case if you can put in some more about Nikkor 55-300mm VR. Thanks.
 
asheshr

asheshr

Super User
I have used both the Tamron LD DI 70-300 and the Nikon 70-300 VR. Used the Tamron for around 3-4 years and switched to Nikon.
Haven't gone back to Tamron ever since. Nikon is way better.
 
ßlåçk Pærl

ßlåçk Pærl

Member
asheshr said:
I have used both the Tamron LD DI 70-300 and the Nikon 70-300 VR. Used the Tamron for around 3-4 years and switched to Nikon.
Haven't gone back to Tamron ever since. Nikon is way better.
Click to expand...
See, Tamron 70-300 DI LD with macro and Nikon 70-300 VR are both of very different segment. As if we are comparing Tata nano with somewhat Honda City? Nikon 70-300 VR is undoubtedly a good lens, and worth the money spend. Said that, there are more high end lenses from Nikon. It's just how much you can pay. However, I want to get one out of the two in discussion as they fit quite well in my budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top