Nikon 55-300 or 70-300? And why

[Ratpack]

I have the D7000 and would like to get a little more reach. Both of these lens get great reviews. I guess my real question is do I need to spend the extra $100 for the 70-300 or is the 55-300 just as good and why.

 

[havoc315]

I have the D7000 and would like to get a little more reach. Both of these lens get great reviews. I guess my real question is do I need to spend the extra $100 for the 70-300 or is the 55-300 just as good and why.

The 70-300 is a full frame lens, so it will work on your d7000, but will
also work on a full frame camera of you ever upgrade.
The 55-300 is an aps-c lens. That makes it a little smaller as well. But it's not exactly compatible with full frame cameras (except in crop mode).

So it's more a question of whether you see a full frame upgrade in your future.

 

[Ratpack]

I really don't see upgrading in my near future. Maybe years down the road as this camera is still outside my abilities.

 

[OKW Lover]

Thanks to the OP for posting this question, and to @havoc315 for the response. I've been considering a longer zoom for a while and I think this just made my decision for me.

 

[havoc315]

There are other differences. The 55 is smaller and lighter.
The 70 (assuming we are talking about the newest version) has much better build quality. And the 55 has a reputation of being much slower focusing.

 

[fairy oma]

I have the 70-300 mm and I can't say enough about how much I love this lens. As PP said it is fast focusing; we went on an Alaskan cruise and I got great shots of whales breaching from quite a distance as well as eagles on an iceberg.