Nikon VR lens?

mummygina

mummygina

Suspended / Banned
Messages
123
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I'm going away on holiday soon and want a good quality zoom lens to take general shots with (portraits, landscapes etc). in particular i want it for taking candid shots of my little one from afar.

my two current options are the Nikon

55-200mm VR DX lens

70-300 VR lens

As i have a nikon d40x am i right in assuming these are compatible? Also what kinda prices are these at the moment?

Which out of the two is better?

sorry for all the questions but i'm a newbie and would greatly appreciate your well valued opinions

many thanks:)
 
Well I'm not really sure which is "better" - obviously the 300mm is longer and doesn't go quite as wide. The kit lens (18-55mm) will be better for landscapes as it goes as wide as 18mm.

They are both compatible.

Prices from Warehouse Express (huge online camera dealer, trustworthy, everyone uses them):

70-300mm VR £330

55-200mm VR £229

So £100 difference. If money is not an issue I would get the 300mm because it's longer, and you have the kit lens for wide shots.
 
Both are AF-S so will autofocus on your D40X
If time wasn't an issue I'd suggest you get a price from Kerso (PM from here)
Otherwise the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 G ED VR DX Lens is £172.99 at onestop-digital.com if you don't mind importing from HK & the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR Lens is £299.99 there also
If you want the best price in UK the www.camerapricebuster.co.uk will link to that for you
I have the 70-300VR & its a beauty :clap:
Paul
 
Im not saying its 'better' as such, but for the ultimate in convenience there is always the; Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR:)
 
Messiah Khan said:
Im not saying its 'better' as such, but for the ultimate in convenience there is always the; Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR:)
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that one too. it would mean that i wouldnt need my current kit lens 18-55 mm, and can use just the one pretty much all the time. I've seen them for £500 though, which is unfortunatly out of my price range. :'(
 
If it's just for general use and not for wildlife/far away stuff in particular, I'd get the 55-200mm and keep the kit lens. It only takes 10 seconds to switch lenses :)
 
it is for general use Ewan, so i cant really justify the extra expense. the price of the 55-200mm DX VR is much more reasonable so i think i'm gonna have to stick to that one, though i do like the idea of the 300mm zoom. LOL i can never make a decision
 
I'm buying (in fact, I've just bought) the 300mm version but only because nearly all of what I do is birds. So reach is everything for me.

I think you'll find the 55-200 is perfect for general use and stuff that you can get reasonably close to. If you wait a couple of days I could take a few shots with my 300mm, showing you the reach at different focal lengths so you could decide what's best for you. I don't think the 300mm is worth an extra £100 unless you're gonna be using it primarily at the long end (which I will be).
 
That would be great, thanks Ewan. it would be good to see the distance difference between the higher ends of both lenses.
 
Ewan said:
I'm buying (in fact, I've just bought) the 300mm version but only because nearly all of what I do is birds. So reach is everything for me.

I think you'll find the 55-200 is perfect for general use and stuff that you can get reasonably close to. If you wait a couple of days I could take a few shots with my 300mm, showing you the reach at different focal lengths so you could decide what's best for you. I don't think the 300mm is worth an extra £100 unless you're gonna be using it primarily at the long end (which I will be).
Click to expand...

IIRC the magnification difference between 200mm-300mm is considerably greater than 100-200mm.

Im just using random numbers here, but for example lets say:

100-200mm = 100mm 5x magnification
200-300mm = 100mm 10x magnification

Not only that but the 70-300 VR has IF, which is faster and can focus closer than non IF lens.

Well worth the £100 extra
 
For me, all of these lenses are a compromise - a bit slow (aperture), not Nikon's "pro" glass, etc. Then the most sensible compromise seems the 18-200. The other two give you not such a wide range, or else give reach that isn't really useful (i.e. if you need 300mm reach it would be better to buy a 300mm prime - faster, sharper, plus it can take a TC).

As a walk-around lens, covering long range for candids, wide angle options, and mid-range for everything else, the 18-200 for me is a really good compromise. I find the 55/70mm min lengths of the others too long (esp. on digital), and would find it annoying to switch all the time when walking around.
 
I think this is the one that I have

55-200mm f/4-5.6G AF-S DX ED Black £139.00 on Warehouse Express at the minute.

I'm no expert but it seems ok. In saying that I'm trying to save for a upto 300mm zoom as sometimes I feel it just doesn't quite reach far enough which is very frustrating.

Have to agree with Ewan on the kit lens. I took both mine to Austria, lugged everything around with me up in the mountains and used the 55-200 for about 2 photos. Felt very cheated that I'd carried the extra weight for no reason. However, would not have got a really poor marmot shot if I hadn't taken it along.

Andrea
 
thinking about it, the 300mm VR lens may be a better option. i think i'd feel frustrated too about not having enough reach. gonna hunt around for a good price on the 300mm VR before i make a final decision
 
just had a thought though, wont the 70-300mm VR lens be a bit too nose heavy for the nikon D40x???
 
mummygina said:
just had a thought though, wont the 70-300mm VR lens be a bit too nose heavy for the nikon D40x???
Click to expand...

Its not heavy at all, really light compared to other lenses. I had a tokina 24-200 on my D50 and its much heavier than than the Nikon.
 
Well I just looked, and the D40x weighs 495g. The 300mm lens weighs 725g. the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED II (I think this is the kit lens you have?) weighs 205g.

And i'm still not really sure. We'll have to find someone who has that combo. Anyone?
 
Ewan said:
Well most lenses are a comprimise unless you've got an unlimited amount to spend.
Click to expand...

That was what I was meaning - sorry if I didn't get the point across well enough. All three of the VRs listed are compromises, but the 18-200mm seems a more "logical" compromise given the type of shooting that was intended.

Even at the high-end these are compromises - the 12-24mm, 28-70mm and 70-200mm cover that range beautifully, but at the very different compromise of a lot of glass, a lot of weight, a lot of money, and a lot of lens changing :)

I read a lot of bad comments about the 18-200mm, but mainly along the lines of "it's not as good as the 70-200mm at 200mm" type of thing. I'm not sure many people expected it to be (!), and for me I tried it and found it to hit the sweet spot of many compromises. A great lens IMO, hugely flexible with minimal downsides.
 
Moadib said:
That was what I was meaning - sorry if I didn't get the point across well enough. All three of the VRs listed are compromises, but the 18-200mm seems a more "logical" compromise given the type of shooting that was intended.
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem :)
 
I have the 18-200 and it is a beauty. I know it's expensive but it covers such a range that it makes the the ultimate walkabout and it's very sharp considering the focal range.

Panzer
 
Ewan said:
Well I just looked, and the D40x weighs 495g. The 300mm lens weighs 725g. the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED II (I think this is the kit lens you have?) weighs 205g.

And i'm still not really sure. We'll have to find someone who has that combo. Anyone?
Click to expand...


Yeah thats the one i have. its all getting so confusing isnt it:lol:?

think i'm gonna pop down to my local camera shop tomorrow to check the options out. i think until i've handled them with a d40x i cant really make a decision.

if i get the 18-200mm, that will make my current kit lens pretty much obselete, the 55-200mm VR would be a perfect transition, as it'll mean i have from 18-200mm covered (i know i'll have to change lens though LOL). i do like the idea of 300mm zoom, but again its pushin up the price. cheapest i've seen this lens is £330 (think my hubby will slap my wrists if i get the 300mm lens:lol::lol:). however if its a good lens and highly recommended, i may have to take the slapped wrists:)
 
Personally I think it's not really worth paying that much more and getting the 18-200 rather than the 55-200. It's a lot of money just to not have to switch lenses. Other people's opinions may differ though - in fact I'm certain they will :D

Let us know what you get anyways, and post us some pics :)
 
I agree Ewan. how much did you get your 300mm for if you dont mind me asking? i think it may be a better option to get the 300mm so that i have more zoom range, thats if its not too heavy for my d40x
 
You won't have any problems with the 70-300 mounted on the d40x, its really not a large lens at all. People hand hold the Sigma 50-500 for example, which is close to 2000g. Below is a photo of the 70-300 mounted to a camera.

nikon70300vr4gm7.jpg


As already stated in this thread, the 70-300 is available from onestop digital for £299.99
 
I don't mind at all :) I paid £330 for mine - from Warehouse Express because I need it before friday (going on holiday) and WE have next day delivery. Onestop Digital is cheaper by £30 (£299.99) but you sometimes have to wait a week or two for delivery apparently as it is shipped from Hong Kong.

Alex - I'm already finding it hard to wait for my new lens, and you're making it worse :D
 
Assuming the ergonomics of the D40x are the same as the D40, I used the 300 solely during my last shoot:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=29729

It's heavy not but too uncomfortable if at all. I walked around with it in hand for 6 hours. For action shots I think it's a bit slow and the autofocus is adequate. The zooming is not as silky smooth as I would like it to be which can be a bit of a hindrance when you are trying to frame your subject as quickly as possible.
 
Ewan said:
I don't mind at all :) I paid £330 for mine - from Warehouse Express because I need it before friday (going on holiday) and WE have next day delivery. Onestop Digital is cheaper by £30 (£299.99) but you sometimes have to wait a week or two for delivery apparently as it is shipped from Hong Kong.

Alex - I'm already finding it hard to wait for my new lens, and you're making it worse :D
Click to expand...

Thats where I got mine from also, paid the same amount. As stated before its not a heavy lens, I used it all day at the Sunderland Airshow (apart from using a friends 80-200 f2.8) and it didn't feel heavy to me. I can post some pictures also for you Ewan, just to tease you even more :naughty:

You sure it the D40X in the picture alex? Looks like a D200 to me :shrug:.
 
alexisonfire said:
You won't have any problems with the 70-300 mounted on the d40x, its really not a large lens at all. People hand hold the Sigma 50-500 for example, which is close to 2000g. Below is a photo of the 70-300 mounted to a camera.

nikon70300vr4gm7.jpg


As already stated in this thread, the 70-300 is available from onestop digital for £299.99
Click to expand...

Wow that lens looks huge :lol:

thanks for your info. hope my local store has one available for me to see. personally it looks to me that it may be too large a lens for me to handle comfortably, which would be a shame as i really do like the 70-300mm focal range.
 
Ewan said:
I don't mind at all :) I paid £330 for mine - from Warehouse Express because I need it before friday (going on holiday) and WE have next day delivery. Onestop Digital is cheaper by £30 (£299.99) but you sometimes have to wait a week or two for delivery apparently as it is shipped from Hong Kong.

Alex - I'm already finding it hard to wait for my new lens, and you're making it worse :D
Click to expand...


Ewan thanks ever so much for divulging your sources. Hope you get yours tomorrow.. would be great to see some of your photos using the 300 VR lens too
 
mummygina said:
Ewan thanks ever so much for divulging your sources. Hope you get yours tomorrow.. would be great to see some of your photos using the 300 VR lens too
Click to expand...

Heres one of mine of the Sunderland Airshow with the 70-300mm VR on my D50. It was hand held, infact all my pictures were, took my tripod for nothing :bang:
Red_arrows_-_small.jpg
 
wow thats a great photo wile e. coyote, fantastic!!!
 
Wile E. coyote said:
Heres one of mine of the Sunderland Airshow with the 70-300mm VR on my D50. It was hand held, infact all my pictures were, took my tripod for nothing :bang:
Red_arrows_-_small.jpg
Click to expand...

The guy second from the top at the back must be at least 30cm out of line - sheesh....! :D

That's some pretty amazing flying. I won't cycle that close to other people :)
 
Wile E. coyote said:
You sure it the D40X in the picture alex? Looks like a D200 to me :shrug:.
Click to expand...

I never said it was a D40X :thinking: And yes, the camera in the photo is a D200. The point of the photo was to scale the lens against the hands :)
 
mummygina said:
Wow that lens looks huge :lol:

thanks for your info. hope my local store has one available for me to see. personally it looks to me that it may be too large a lens for me to handle comfortably, which would be a shame as i really do like the 70-300mm focal range.
Click to expand...

Its really not that large at all. Don't forget almost half the lens in that photo is just the lens hood.
 
alexisonfire said:
I never said it was a D40X :thinking: And yes, the camera in the photo is a D200. The point of the photo was to scale the lens against the hands :)
Click to expand...

Ah sorry must have mis-read your post :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top