Going from 200mm to 300mm - Much difference?

P

Pezza4u

Suspended / Banned
Messages
333
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 55-200mm Nikon lenses, which I love, the results I get are brilliant. However, as I photograph alot of animals, mainly at zoos I'm finding 200mm isn't long enough for some of them. Especially big cats where you can't get the lens right up to the fence so this shows in the photos.

How much difference zoom wise is there between 200mm and 300mm?

Will the extra zoom help to hide chain fencing?

I've ruled out the Tamron and was looking at the Sigma but from what I've read it's pretty soft at the 300mm end, plus it doesn't focus as quickly. So that leaves the Nikon 70-300mm. I would have to sell the 55-200mm (couldn't justify keeping it) to fund it but at £300 would this lens be a big improvement over the one I currently have?
 
Why don't you get a +2 converter for your 55-200mm that would increase your focal length to 110-400mm :shrug:
 
Sigma bigma 50-500 is meant to be very good. but at 800 second hand (600 if you are lucky) its not exactly cheap.


However, you could borrow it for a weekend from a lens hire place to check it. Might be worth that, plus doing that for the others you are thinking of.

You get to test 'em in real life then.

Either that, or see if you can meet up with some one who has one so you can borrow and get tips of usage too.
 
As you already have the 55-200 surely the best idea is to get a 2x converter?

I have the 70-300 but can’t get close enough to small things to fill the frame and 400 would be better.
 
Grayo said:
Why don't you get a +2 converter for your 55-200mm that would increase your focal length to 110-400mm :shrug:
Click to expand...

Because image quality will be terrible and AF will be very poor, if it works at all - non starter with that lens. You need a very good lens indeed, f/2.8 or lower, to make a 2x work decently.

300mm will obviously help, but it's not night and day as said above. When you run out of reach like that, you tend to need to double up to fix it properly. To get rid of fencing, get as close as possible, almost touching, and try and shoot through the holes if you can.

The difference between 200mm and 300mm is 33%. Try this. Frame up a subject with your 200mm at 3m, then move forward to 2m - that's what you'll get with 300mm. Move to 1.5m and that's the field of view at 400mm.
 
HoppyUK said:
Because image quality will be terrible and AF will be very poor, if it works at all - non starter with that lens. You need a very good lens indeed, f/2.8 or lower, to make a 2x work decently.

300mm will obviously help, but it's not night and day as said above. When you run out of reach like that, you tend to need to double up to fix it properly. To get rid of fencing, get as close as possible, almost touching, and try and shoot through the holes if you can.

The difference between 200mm and 300mm is 33%. Try this. Frame up a subject with your 200mm at 3m, then move forward to 2m - that's what you'll get with 300mm. Move to 1.5m and that's the field of view at 400mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips, I'll try that. I hadn't thought of teleconverters but if they're going to affect the image quality and focus I'll give them a miss.

As much as I would love to go bigger than 300mm I can't afford it, £300 is pushing it anyway and I don't want to carry a larger heavy lens.

Gareth_R said:
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-55-300mm-DX-lens-review.htm
Click to expand...

I didn't even know there was a 55-300...why haven't I seen many threads on here about it or maybe I've missed them....I'll have a search. They seem cheaper than the 70-300 at £250, which is tempting, is there much difference between the two? The review on the lens hood doesn't sound good though, would other ones be available that are stronger?

scottthehat said:
go for a 70-300mm vr sell the 55-200mm.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-NIKON...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item336a71b031
Click to expand...

If I got for the 70-300 it would be a used one, ATM I can't justify spending that much. Thanks for the link though.
 
200-300 is a big jump but more than likley you'll want/need more as Hoppy has said.

I did the following image to help me visualise it a week or so ago now:

200-500.jpg

blog post
 
HoppyUK "Because image quality will be terrible and AF will be very poor, if it works at all - non starter with that lens. You need a very good lens indeed, f/2.8 or lower, to make a 2x work decently.”

Thanks Richard for this info - something I have learnt today that will be useful in future.

While we’re at it you couldn’t tell me how to put the quote in a box like others do could you?

Phil
 
The focal length comparisons on the manufacturer’s sites are quite good - Tamron, Canon etc.
 
Get the 70-300 they go for 300 s/h the difference is not massive but it is noticeable if you have a fairly modern camera with plenty of mp crop the image it is a legitimate use of those huge mp numbers.
 
bornagain said:
HoppyUK "Because image quality will be terrible and AF will be very poor, if it works at all - non starter with that lens. You need a very good lens indeed, f/2.8 or lower, to make a 2x work decently.”

Thanks Richard for this info - something I have learnt today that will be useful in future.

While we’re at it you couldn’t tell me how to put the quote in a box like others do could you?

Phil
Click to expand...

You're welcome Phil. The rules of telecons are that a 1.4x raises the f/number by one stop (eg f/4 becomes f/5.6) and 2x raises it two stops (f/4 becomes f/8).

All a telecon does is magnify the centre of the image, so if the lens is already maxed out on resolution all you get is a bigger blur. Plus most AF systems switch out above f/5.6, or work very poorly at best.

Telecons generally work okay on high end primes (eg Canon 300L 2.8) but otherwise not much else.

To quote someone's post, hit the quote button in the bottom right of their post ;)
 
If you decide to get the nikon 70-300VR don't pay too much for it, unusually for a pricey lens a lot of normal retailers stock it and in the last couple of months both argos and currys have had it for £300 brand new so look out for offers or set a limit of say £250 s/hand.

Also keep looking for different vantage points at the zoo. This was taken with the 55-200 non vr nikon you have, through a fence, jpg straight from camera, no cropping or messing with image:

5740593891_847360fc8e.jpg
 
Thanks for the illustration Chris, it's a big help, I can visualise the difference now and it's fairly noticeable.

vrapan said:
Get the 70-300 they go for 300 s/h the difference is not massive but it is noticeable if you have a fairly modern camera with plenty of mp crop the image it is a legitimate use of those huge mp numbers.
Click to expand...

I have a D5000 so I think it has 12mp and I usually crop some of my photos. Mainly those at the back of enclosures and birds. I think the extra reach will help with the image quality after cropping. Some shots taken at 200mm after cropping I've been disappointed with. I will also be using this lens for the odd occassion I go to car shows and what to get some of the track action.

tim_uk said:
If you decide to get the nikon 70-300VR don't pay too much for it, unusually for a pricey lens a lot of normal retailers stock it and in the last couple of months both argos and currys have had it for £300 brand new so look out for offers or set a limit of say £250 s/hand.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that info, if I go for that one I'll keep an eye out for any offers. I still can't decide ATM though, the 55-300 is just under £230 on Amazon, which seems a very good price.

I'll have to look on flickr for images taken with both but am I right in thinking the overall quality of the image will be no different from both lenses? Not to my eye anyway, I only do this as a hobby.

I keep reading that the 70-300 is quite heavy and I wondering if I will like this or not. The 55-300 is suppose to be alot lighter but has a metal mount unlike the 55-200, which is plastic, so the build quality should be ok. I know the 70-300 will AF quicker than the 55-300 but does anyone know just how much difference there is between the 2? If the image quality from both lenses will be the same I think it might make sense to get the 55-300 unless the 70-300 comes on offer again.

I'll go to Jessops as well and look at both lenses to see how they feel.
 
Yes, I got my 70-300VR for £303 from currys online a few months ago. I also have a 18-200 and find the extra length well worth it.
I think it helps in my case that the 18-200 isn't the sharpest lens at 200mm so at 150mm plus the 70-300 is a no brainer.
When I first got the 70-300 I was slightly disappointed in the sharpness at 300mm (it tails off from about 250mm on) but probably more because I was comparing it to a 200-400 f4 I had borrowed!
Now I am used to it I am pretty impressed with the results it will give in good light.
a random example...

Lynx, SPTA by tobyjm, on Flickr
or go here.....http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobyjm/5981641893/sizes/o/in/photostream/
for the full resolution image.
This has been sharpened is PS but it still shows what can be achieved without much skill ;)
Oh, and the 70-300 is very light for what it is. It hangs horizontal when attached to my D300 with battery grip although it is obviously heavier than the shorter range lenses.

Toby
edit: BTW, the pic above was taken at 1/125 sec at 300mm and I have shaky hands so it shows the VRII works well!
 
Last edited:
I moved from the 55-200 to the 70-300 vr. Found the quality much better in images and the vr is in a different league.

It is most definitely heavier but together with a black rapid strap it is very comfortable carrying it around all day.
 
This just about answers my question if I should go for a **-300mm or a **-200mm lens.

Just need to get the more money togethter to buy a **-300 :| :lol:
 
brman said:
Yes, I got my 70-300VR for £303 from currys online a few months ago. I also have a 18-200 and find the extra length well worth it.
I think it helps in my case that the 18-200 isn't the sharpest lens at 200mm so at 150mm plus the 70-300 is a no brainer.
When I first got the 70-300 I was slightly disappointed in the sharpness at 300mm (it tails off from about 250mm on) but probably more because I was comparing it to a 200-400 f4 I had borrowed!
Now I am used to it I am pretty impressed with the results it will give in good light.
a random example...

Lynx, SPTA by tobyjm, on Flickr
or go here.....http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobyjm/5981641893/sizes/o/in/photostream/
for the full resolution image.
This has been sharpened is PS but it still shows what can be achieved without much skill ;)
Oh, and the 70-300 is very light for what it is. It hangs horizontal when attached to my D300 with battery grip although it is obviously heavier than the shorter range lenses.

Toby
edit: BTW, the pic above was taken at 1/125 sec at 300mm and I have shaky hands so it shows the VRII works well!
Click to expand...

Wow, that photo looks great even at full size, if that's how sharp the lens is at 300mm I think I could be convinced to go for the 70-300. I have been looking at the 55-300 and 70-300 Flickr groups and TBH images from both lenses look the same to my eyes. Hopefully the 70-300 will be on offer again soon as I think this would be the better one to get and will probably hold it's value more. It's a shame when Argos was selling them some people had to be greedy and buy loads :(

dejongj said:
I moved from the 55-200 to the 70-300 vr. Found the quality much better in images and the vr is in a different league.

It is most definitely heavier but together with a black rapid strap it is very comfortable carrying it around all day.
Click to expand...

What strap do you have? Looking at photos of the lens fully extended it's very big! I only have the Nikon strap and TBH I find it's not long enough anyway so want to replace it.

realspeed said:
Pezza4u said:
I have a 55-200mm Nikon lenses, which I love,
How much difference zoom wise is there between 200mm and 300mm?
Click to expand...


My guess is about 100mm .:D:D:D

Realspeed
Click to expand...

There's always one!! :lol:
 
Wow, that photo looks great even at full size, if that's how sharp the lens is at 300mm I think I could be convinced to go for the 70-300.
Click to expand...

Before you get the lens and get disappointed I should point out that has been processed and sharpened. So it is not so much how sharp the lens is but how sharp a result you can get using the lens. (if you get the distinction)
For a straight from camera (raw, default camera sharpening) 100% crop look here....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobyjm/5783064003/in/set-72157627116565925
For an example comparing with the 18-200 see these two.....
1. 70-300 zoomed to match the 18-200 at 200mm.

70-300 100% equal frame size by tobyjm, on Flickr
2. 18-200 @200mm

18-200 100% equal frame size by tobyjm, on Flickr
The 18-200 gets good reviews but it shows the compromise you get with a superzoom. To be fair, with processing the 18-200 has given some pretty good results too.

Toby
 
Cheers, I will have a look at that strap, seen a few threads about it so must be popular.

brman said:
Before you get the lens and get disappointed I should point out that has been processed and sharpened. So it is not so much how sharp the lens is but how sharp a result you can get using the lens. (if you get the distinction)
For a straight from camera (raw, default camera sharpening) 100% crop look here....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobyjm/5783064003/in/set-72157627116565925
For an example comparing with the 18-200 see these two.....
1. 70-300 zoomed to match the 18-200 at 200mm.

70-300 100% equal frame size by tobyjm, on Flickr
2. 18-200 @200mm

18-200 100% equal frame size by tobyjm, on Flickr
The 18-200 gets good reviews but it shows the compromise you get with a superzoom. To be fair, with processing the 18-200 has given some pretty good results too.

Toby
Click to expand...

Yes mate I know that image would've been processed and sharpened, but from the example you've posted it is obviously better than the 18-200. I would imagine the 55-200 gives the same/similar result at 200mm.

If the lens comes up for £300 again I will more than likely get it. If it doesn't I'm still considering the 55-300mm but I want to go and look at both lenses before making a decision.
 
I've recently swapped my 55-200 for a 55-300 and am glad I did. It's not as good as the 70-300 (not full frame, slower to autofocus) but I'm pleased with the shots I've been getting and it is cheaper if budget is important. The VR is good, I can easily take hand held images at 300mm. You can pick them up for a ~£230 and you'll probably get ~£100 selling your 55-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top