Reddit Reddit reviews Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

We found 24 Reddit comments about Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Digital Camera Lenses
Camera Lenses
Camcorder & Camera Lenses
Camera & Photo
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras
5.5x Telephoto Zoom lens,Filter Thread: 58 mmNikon VR Image Stabilization; Tripod Detection Mode, Focal Length Range : 55 -300 mm, Minimum Focus Distance : 4.6 ft.( 1.4 m)HRI (High Refractive Index) Lens Element2 Extra-low Dispersion (ED) Elements.Exclusive Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM)Lens Cap:Snap-on
Check price on Amazon

24 Reddit comments about Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras:

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/rva

Thanks! I just sent my camera back to Nikon for refurbishing and sensor cleaning and I'm super happy with it. I believe the lens used was this bad boy which for the price is my absolute favorite lens and very versatile.

u/WiFiEnabled · 4 pointsr/Nikon

First option is an FX VR II lens, latter is DX and doesn't have a VR switch option.

If you're going to get the latter DX lens, might want to consider the Nikon 55-300mm VR which is wider and the same price:

u/ForwardTwo · 4 pointsr/ReviewThis

I wrote a huge thread about buying Nikon as I am studying photography and am one of the biggest Nikon fanboys on the planet. I'll paste it all here. The D3100 and the D5100 are EXCELLENT cameras, and will blow your mind as an entry level DSLR. Do not fall into the D7000 trap, it's not worth it due to it's AF problems. I own a D300, D80, and GF1. Here's everything I had to say... It's lengthy. All about which lenses you should go for with your D3100/D5100

The 35mm f1.8: The lens is fixed at 35mm, so no zooming. However, the fact that it is f1.8 means it has AWESOME low light capabilities. I always recommend wide angles to new DSLR owners because it really introduces you to what the camera is capable of. You'll get a grip of aperture values and creative bokeh use; it is wonderful. Plus it seems like everyone loves that 'large sensor' look with beautiful background blur (bokeh) and very sharp foreground details, and wide angle lenses at very low apertures will definitely give you that. Just mind you that 35mm is kind of a short length, but you can live with it. (My GF1 only has a 20mm lens attached to it, and it is still one of my favorite lenses to date from Panasonic.) The price is to DIE FOR.

55-300mm f4.5-f5.6: While I don't exactly like variable aperture zooms, they are are fantastically priced. Don't expect ridiculous zoom levels though, but it'll still zoom pretty well; 300mm is a fairly good zoom. The reason why I don't really like variable apertures is that sometimes you completely forget about them, and if you are shooting in manual that will absolutely kill your shot if you weren't shooting in RAW.

So I'll be zoomed at 100mm, probably at f4.9, and then zoom to 280mm. Suddenly, I'm at f5.5 without changing it myself because the lens doesn't support f4.9 at that zoom. Kind of a downside, but you just have to keep it in mind and shoot in RAW.

There is another option if you don't want variable apertures however.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: This is the beast lens. If you want to save up money for a lens, I promise this is the one you want to do that for.

My 70-200mm VR is a lens I refuse to leave at home when going on a trip, it is simply my favorite lens EVER. This is the next version of it, but it is cheaper because of demand.

But now you see the downside to low aperture telephoto: price. $2,400 isn't exactly the most affordable lens on the planet, but that's why it is worth it to buy this a while after you have had your DSLR and have saved up some money for that killer lens. This, paired with the 35mm f1.8 I put above there, would be a killer kit. It would be fantastic for low light conditions, even with the telephoto.

I'm a loyal Nikon shooter for a reason: They are quality. While I'm a bit disappointed with how long it took them to jump into DSLR video, the quality of their cameras have always pleasantly surprised me ( Not counting the D7000 of course ;) ). The D3100 was one of those cameras that I just loved, the price is fantastic and the quality of the camera itself is mind blowing for the price.

My first camera was a D80, and I fell in love with it. That was a while ago though, and once I picked up my D300... Magic. I had never used such a powerful camera before, and it blew my mind what the D300 was capable of. While it is getting a bit old (Older Sensor, still an old 12MP with lesser low light capabilities than the newer cameras), the auto-focus points are fantastic and the overall speed and RAW processing power of the camera have never failed to make me smile.

I have a nice little savings account for a D3x or the D4 line once it is released. ;D

The D3100 is a camera that you'll probably keep for a long time. It is a quality camera, like all Nikons. It is powerful, and is considered to be one of the 'new age' DSLRs: lower price, greater power. Hopefully this camera will turn you into a life long Nikon fan. ;) Have fun with it, that's the one major rule. Don't pay attention to any of the shooting rules if you feel like you have a better idea; follow your eyes, not some other person's laws (Rule of thirds, etc.).
Good Luck! And Have Fun! :D

u/TThor · 2 pointsr/photography

Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.

-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-

After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).

-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-

So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.

u/Rado_K · 2 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

7200 is a great choice! 18-55 for landscape, 55-300 for wildlife, 35 1.8 DX for crispy shots and bOkeh and some extension tubes for macro. You'll see later whether you want spend thousands for better pro lenses. For start this should cover almost everything.

u/clownpornstar · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm upgrading for ability to shoot video instead of carrying a camcorder to my daughters gymnastics meets. Usually in fluorescent lights.

Outside of that I primarily shoot nature and portrait type pictures. I use the 18-55 kit lens, plus I have this 35mm lens, and this 55-300mm zoom lens.

u/ShenTheWise · 2 pointsr/photography
u/Cupcake_Kat · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Very nice! I am currently saving for this one ; )

u/running-with-pugs · 1 pointr/photography

I have the Nikon D3300 with its basic lens that goes from 18mm wide to 55mm zoom - that's like rather wide so you can almost fit a whole room into the shot - to about 4-5x zoom on point and shoot cameras.

On top of that I got a used lens that goes from 55mm to 300mm ant this thing is good for hunting ducks and other animals from distance (dunno, additional 15x zoom? hard to say because these are different class cameras). Great fun lens for day use, I like it a lot for the 170€ that cost me used. It's this one:

For night time I got a fixed 35mm lens - no zoom, just very sensitive to light: Used a lot for concerts, video and general daily use.

After that is my "candy", stuff I don't reaaaallly need but wanted it bad enough to now have it :)

Got a fixed 85mm that's very sensitive to light: I use this one for through the crowd shots on concerts and portraits and sometimes for the hell of it, the damned thing is fun to use.

50mm I got as a gift, also very sensitive to light: It mostly lives on my other camera for every day use as I'm trying to learn fully manual photography.

A 18-105mm zoom that came with my other camera. Not a very good lens but comes handy when I have no idea what to expect. Got it with a used Nikon D90 camera. This is an older camera with poor video capability. But it has many pro features that I'm really starting to miss on D3300, like additional buttons and a second dial and an LCD screen.

u/Flojani · 1 pointr/photography

Could anyone explain to me the differences between these two lens? Could someone also tell me which would be better and why? The more detail the better! If which camera they will be used on matters... It'll be a Nikon D5200.

Lens 1: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Lens 2: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX

u/Dragonteuthis · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

The 18-55mm lens is good but not great. It's not a bad idea to have that lens around, as it gives you a moderate wide angle at 18mm, but can close in to 55mm for portraits, etc. That lens is also astonishingly light, and makes the D3400 a great walkaround camera. It's one reason I've kept that camera and lens even after getting a D7500.

In my opinion, the 70-300mm lens is really not very good. It lacks VR, which is very very useful for a lens that long, as any handshake is magnified the longer a lens is. And the maximum aperture is small. It could probably work okay on a bright sunny day. I used mine a couple of times and it's sat on the shelf ever since, and is now replaced by the superior 55-300mm (which does have VR).

It depends how important telephoto reach is for you right out of the box. If you're taking photos of airplanes, I assume it will be sunny, so the 70-300mm should work, as it will give you much-needed reach. It will at least fill the gap while you save up for a better telephoto.

On the other hand, on Amazon you can pick up a certified refurbished D3400 with just the 18-55mm kit lens for $400, and then get a used 55-300mm for $180 or less. That adds up to nearly a hundred more than the product you linked, so that's up to your budget, but I can tell you that knowing what I know now, that's the route I would have gone.

Edit: Product links (you can probably find similar at other websites like bhphoto or keh):

u/it_am_silly · 1 pointr/photography

I'm upgrading from a bridge (Lumix FZ150) to a DSLR. I learnt on a Canon 350D so I'm not really a 'beginner' but my price range doesn't allow much better than a beginner camera. I'm currently looking the the Nikon D3300/D5300 with kit lens and this since I'm mainly going to use it at air shows. Does anyone know if the D5300 is worth the extra £100? I don't care for Wifi/GPS but the articulated screen and more AF points are tempting me.

If anyone's got suggestions for a completely different camera/lens I'm open to anything.

u/Blow_That_Job · 1 pointr/photography

I'm planning to get a 55-300mm or 55-200mm lens. Don't know if there is a specific one I should be looking at but I had this one in mind:

u/nessi_saltares · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Nikon D3000, this lens and I don't remember the settings. I just always play around with the settings & adjust until I get one I like.

u/The_Foetus · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Thanks a lot for your detailed response! The Tokina sounds pretty good to me, shooting stars is one thing I definitely hope to do at some point, but it's quite a bit monetary investment for a single lens for a beginner like me, but perhaps as a present...

Also that's good to know, I can manual focus fine but obviously autofocus is seriously useful in most scenarios, so wouldn't want to unwittingly be landed with a lens with no autofocus.

I think I might invest first in a long focal length one (thinking maybe this) and maybe a 35 or 50mm large aperture prime, could get both for the price of the Tokina... But yeah, thanks very much, you've been a tremendous help

u/Ubiquity4321 · 1 pointr/barter

Not trying to argue or anything, everything is 100% cool with you not wanting the lens.

But I am a professional photographer, so I have to say something to help out where I can...

Do you mean the newest 50 f/1.8 G? Or an older D model? Older D models have a screw-focus mechanism and will not autofocus with D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000/5100 model cameras and will have to be manually focused anyway. And the lens is more than $200 before taxes.

If you want a "normal" (normal field of view, i.e. what your eyes see more or less) lens with the 1.5x crop of most consumer level digital cameras, you might want to look for a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G. You can see that, even used, the lens is less than $200.

And do you mean the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6? That one is $400 and has less light coming onto your sensor wide-open at f/4.5 through f/5.6. Any lens that goes from 55mm to 200mm is not going to be very sharp and will probably not focus well from about 8pm on (due to modern phase focus systems and consumer lens manufacturing).

What camera do you own?

Personally, I would look at prime lenses (lenses that are one fixed focal length) over zoom lenses - you zoom with your feet rather than with the lens and it makes you a better photographer faster because you have to use all of that slight annoyance of not zooming to get a better picture. It helps you think. In my opinion, zooming is a crutch. Prime lenses are also generally sharper because they are not trying to be sharp at all focal lengths and they are generally faster (f/1.8 as opposed to f/4.5-5.6 which means it lets more light onto the sensor).

u/jackjustdied · 1 pointr/HumanPorn

Same equipment! I think I'm unfairly harsh on the kit lens, so I usually stick with the fifty. I nearly bought the 55-300mm (it seems like an amazing deal) but my buddy told me to save my pennies. See, I'm hesitant to buy DX lenses, just in case I want to upgrade to full frame at a later date. I'm still torn on that.

u/Regrenos · 1 pointr/photography

Consider the 70-300mm or 55-300mm or 300mm f/4 instead. The first is a very good quality zoom lens that will allow you to change zoom for framing, the second is a cheaper version of the same, and the third is a very good prime. I have the 55-300mm and I found that I use it for birds and such, almost 99% of the time at 300mm. I think if I were to reconsider the purchase I would go for the 300mm f/4, epecially because it allows the use of teleconverters. If you go for the 18-300mm, you sacrifice a large amount of quality in all focal lengths. It isn't worth it. With the budget you have for the 18-300mm, you can get the 70-300mm and gain quite a lot of quality or the 300mm prime and find yourself with an amazing birding/wildlife lens. If you stick a 2x teleconverter on there, you have 960mm f/8 lens on an APS-C body - basically a telescope, but also amazing for birds (but a little lacking in low light).

u/Mac4491 · 1 pointr/photography
u/Smiley_35 · 1 pointr/photography

My SO recently bought a Nikkor DX 35 and loves it. He's looking for something more for landscapes/scenery or otherwise a good all around lens. He has two stock lenses which he does not like. Any suggestions? Apologies as I'm not familiar with any of this stuff. Thanks!

Edit: the camera is Nikkon D5100
The lenses are AF-s Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G and af-s nikkor 18-55mm 1 3.5-5.6 g

u/UndeadCaesar · 1 pointr/photography

Best lens for the money? Or some other AF telephoto completely?

Tamron 70-300mm

Nikon 55-300mm

Leaning towards the Nikon as I've heard better things, but I have the Tamron 28-75 and absolutely love it so there's that as well.

u/RavenclawDash · 0 pointsr/photography

i want a new camrea lens. this one to be exact. i also want this camrea bag.