Which tele zoom?

[Stuart M]

Having, for the moment at least, sorted out the lower end of my lens collection (up to 50mm), I'm now looking to replace the longer end glass and the first step will be to upgrade the 55-200mm kit lens. Unfortunately, I can't afford any fancy glass at present so I'm looking for something cheap(ish) but better than the kit lens until I can save up for something better. To this end, I've so far shortlisted the following ...

Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4-5.6 VR
Sigma APO DG 70-300mm f/4-5.6 macro
Tamron Di LD 70-300mm f/4-5,6 macro

All three come in on Amazon at between £100-£125 which suits the current budget. Write ups suggest that there's not all that much to choose between them so I'm undecided. What does the panel think?


P.S. Not really bothered about the macro bit as I've already got a dedicated macro lens in the Sigma 105

 

[mikew]

I have the 55-300 and its possible to get decent results from it,the other two i have not used the latest versions, only an early version of the sigma but have seen discussions where people moved to the Nikon due to not being happy with the results.Ime not a Nikon snob i have had and enjoyed Sigma and now mainly use the tamron 150-600.

 

[pete.rush]

None of these lenses you mention above are much better than your kit lens, personally, I would wait and increase your budget for either the Nikon 70-300mm VR or Tamron 70-300mm VC lenses which would definitely give you a step up in quality and performance

 

[HoppyUK]

Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens, and great value. It's at the long end where sharpness suffers with tele-zooms and the Tamron is head and shoulders above third party rival there, and so close to the Nikon 70-300 as makes no difference.

 

[mikew]

Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens, and great value. It's at the long end where sharpness suffers with tele-zooms and the Tamron is head and shoulders above third party rival there, and so close to the Nikon 70-300 as makes no difference.

I took it to mean the OP was talking about the lesser version,if not my vote is with you

 

[HoppyUK]

I took it to mean the OP was talking about the lesser version,if not my vote is with you

And yes, actually he was! Apologies.

The cheapo Tamron 70-300 non-VC is not a good lens. Amazing value at under £100 for sure, but optically it gets well beaten by the similarly priced Sigma 70-300 (the APO version of that is not worth the extra IMHO). So if it's a short-term cheaper lens or nothing, then go for the Sigma non-APO.

However, the Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens for less than £300, well built with quality imaging at 300mm, plus VC of course - very handy on a tele-zoom. It's within a spit of the excellent Nikon 70-300 VR. That's more money, but just checking prices now on CPB http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-FX-Lenses/Nikon-AF-S-70-300mm-VR-Lens it looks like the Nikon has been up and down a bit lately, and now under £400. Not an easy choice at that money...

 

[Stuart M]

Thanks for your input chaps. I agree with what you say; there's little point in spending a hundred if I'm only going to marginally improve on the kit lens I've already got. I think I'll resist temptation for now and keep squirreling cash away until I've got a few hundred for a far more worthwhile upgrade.

 

[Swanseajack]

Another vote for the Tamron 70-300VC, myself I prefered it to the Nikon 70-300VR which I have also owned. Also, at the time it was about £120.00 cheaper.

I had the Nikon 50-300mm when I bought it as a kit with my old D7000 and although good IQ from the lens, the Tamron VC and Nikon VR where better performers, and if memory serves me right the these lenses were metal mount and the 55-300 was plastic.

 

[Ido Scharf]

Thanks for your input chaps. I agree with what you say; there's little point in spending a hundred if I'm only going to marginally improve on the kit lens I've already got. I think I'll resist temptation for now and keep squirreling cash away until I've got a few hundred for a far more worthwhile upgrade.

Good move. The cheapest lens that will make for a significant improvement over your current kit is probably the Tamron 70-300mm VC, though I don't know much about it. The more expensive, but still under $700, Nikon 70-300mm VR is a proven one, and I've heard nothing but good things about it, especially considering its price.

 

[Phil-D]

Another vote for the Sigma 70-300 ,around £50 2nd hand , superb value for money . Some of my favourite images have been took with the sigma.

I bought a 70-300vr a few months back, under the same conditions I feel there's hardly difference between the two in quality, although hand held the vr just has the edge

 

[Phil-D]

@Stuart M

Actually, just to prove my point, this was taken on a ten year old D70 with the sigma @195mm,hand held. It was taken for one of mi TP52.

Aperture was wide open to give as shallow dof as possible, I wanted focus on the teeth

For a 50quid lens that's got to be good quality and value for money

I have plenty more on mi flickr taken with the sigma, ,for the money, I can't praise it enough


TP 52 Week 33 - Sharp! by Phil D 245, on Flickr

 

[Cagey75]

None of these lenses you mention above are much better than your kit lens, personally, I would wait and increase your budget for either the Nikon 70-300mm VR or Tamron 70-300mm VC lenses which would definitely give you a step up in quality and performance

Agree. Save a little more and get one of these, I'd even go a step further and suggest looking to a 70-200 2.8 used, or even the older Tamron 70-200 2.8 non VC new - which isn't much more than a Nikon 70-300 price-wise.

 

[Phil-D]

Agree. Save a little more and get one of these, I'd even go a step further and suggest looking to a 70-200 2.8 used, or even the older Tamron 70-200 2.8 non VC new - which isn't much more than a Nikon 70-300 price-wise.

Yes, but the OP said he had a budget of £100-£125, I'm not having a go, but there's always someone on here that says you needed to spend more money for better photo's

If its a career, maybe, I can't disagree that better glass will give you better image quality, wider aperture leading to faster shutter speed in low light, but for a fun hobby, personally, I don't think expensive glass is necessary to get good, acceptable images.

At the end of the day, its the OP choice, but if I was skint and wanted more reach, I certainly know where I would be looking

 

[Ido Scharf]

Yes, but the OP said he had a budget of £100-£125, I'm not having a go, but there's always someone on here that says you needed to spend more money for better photo's

If its a career, maybe, I can't disagree that better glass will give you better image quality, wider aperture leading to faster shutter speed in low light, but for a fun hobby, personally, I don't think expensive glass is necessary to get good, acceptable images.

At the end of the day, its the OP choice, but if I was skint and wanted more reach, I certainly know where I would be looking

The thing is, he already has telephoto focal lengths covered, with more than acceptable optical quality. I suppose the Sigma 70-300mm won't make for a dramatic difference, so why bother fixing something that isn't broken? That's the approach I, along with several others here, have taken and it did convince the OP. Make great pictures with the gear you already have, while saving up for something that will make a real difference.

 

[Phil-D]

The thing is, he already has telephoto focal lengths covered, with more than acceptable optical quality. I suppose the Sigma 70-300mm won't make for a dramatic difference, so why bother fixing something that isn't broken? That's the approach I, along with several others here, have taken and it did convince the OP. Make great pictures with the gear you already have, while saving up for something that will make a real difference.

Well I'm a little confused .......I thought he was asking for more focal length? He has up to 200mm covered, he was wanting up to 300mm

What has been suggested by Keith is an upgrade of the same focal length he already has, only a lot more expensive

And to say it again, I have both 70-300 vr and the 70-300 sigma, if I was looking on a budget, the sigma would definitely be in my basket

 

[Cagey75]

Yes, but the OP said he had a budget of £100-£125, I'm not having a go, but there's always someone on here that says you needed to spend more money for better photo's

If its a career, maybe, I can't disagree that better glass will give you better image quality, wider aperture leading to faster shutter speed in low light, but for a fun hobby, personally, I don't think expensive glass is necessary to get good, acceptable images.

At the end of the day, its the OP choice, but if I was skint and wanted more reach, I certainly know where I would be looking

I didn't say any such thing, talk about twisting words! sheesh! There's always someone jumping on other's suggestions here, after picking them up wrong, more like. I don't see where he says that 200mm isn't sufficient either. He says "I'm looking to upgrade the longer end" where do you get that he needs more than 200mm from that? It's better quality he is after.

You don't have to have a career in photography to spend a little more on better quality! We're not talking high end gear here whatsoever.

OP has already resigned to the fact he'll probably end up spending more in the long run, that's what I gathered at least. Initial budget would be wasted on buying something only equal to what he has, which is the 55-200. I had that lens for a while, it did the job until I saved for better.... why spend more on the same? I'm suggesting waiting! Not going broke for it. Saving, and getting something that will last you years, and will give better quality. In the mean time keep using the 55-200. So what's your issue exactly? It's only a suggestion anyway. And for the OP to ponder on.

I'm not a pro, I have some high end gear - I enjoy better quality, seems like OP does too, otherwise wouldn't be looking to upgrade. Waiting and saving are not bad things, and totally doable with patience.

 

[Phil-D]

I didn't say any such thing, talk about twisting words! sheesh! There's always someone jumping on other's suggestions here, after picking them up wrong, more like. I don't see where he says that 200mm isn't sufficient either. He says "I'm looking to upgrade the longer end" where do you get that he needs more than 200mm from that? It's better quality he is after.

You don't have to have a career in photography to spend a little more on better quality! We're not talking high end gear here whatsoever.

OP has already resigned to the fact he'll probably end up spending more in the long run, that's what I gathered at least. Initial budget would be wasted on buying something only equal to what he has, which is the 55-200. I had that lens for a while, it did the job until I saved for better.... why spend more on the same? I'm suggesting waiting! Not going broke for it. Saving, and getting something that will last you years, and will give better quality. In the mean time keep using the 55-200. So what's your issue exactly? It's only a suggestion anyway. And for the OP to ponder on.

I'm not a pro, I have some high end gear - I enjoy better quality, seems like OP does too, otherwise wouldn't be looking to upgrade. Waiting and saving are not bad things, and totally doable with patience.

Yes you are right

As you say, there's always someone jumping on other suggestions.........as I said in my original post, I wasn't having a go, don't take it so personally next time

 

[Cagey75]

Personally? Nah!, don't worry on that score, i forget these things 5 mins later. But felt I needed to get that straight My suggestion was meant to be helpful, not to try break the OP!