Nikon 55-200mm VR vs 70-300mm VR

Foggy

Foggy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,196
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Coming up to a year with my D40 now and am finding the lack of zoom quite limiting. Currently have an 18-55mm kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8 (which is what I use maybe 90% of the time). I would love a 70-300mm VR but money is pretty tight at the moment and am struggling to get the cash together for it. I have seen the 55-200 for just shy of £125 which seems a pretty substantial difference over the 70-300mm. If I go for the 55-200 am I likely to regret it? Other than the extra reach is there much of a difference? Is the VR or bokeh or anything much better on the 300?

Cheers
 
I think the answer is subject to what you plan to shoot with it.
 
I use this 55-200mm VR lens quite a lot for general photography, the quality, even wide open, is stunning. It will leave you a little short for wildlife and bird photography....but, so will the 300mm. This is a lens I do not regret buying.
 
The 55-200 VR is a steal for the money.

The 70-300 VR is OK too, but its only really good between 70-220-ish, so you pay a lot more for so-so 300mm performance, and more weight.
 
i have the 55-200mm and i use it with a d40 and it produces some cracking photos and at the price i dont think you can get better
 
Ok - cheers! Sounds like the 55-200 is well worth the cash.

Main use will be for things like days out with the family, trips to the zoo, taking photos of deer in the park, walk abouts and holidays. Currently finding 55mm a bit of a restrictive maximum :)
 
Yep sounds like the 55-200 is what your after... I asked myself this very question about a month ago, but went with the extra length mainly due to wanting to get more out of my rugby shots. The only problem now is I want another quality lens on the shorter range :D
 
Damn that Kerso and his 'I have it in stock' evilness! My 55-200 should be here by the end of week :eek: :woot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top