70-300 VR: how much better is it comparing to the 55-200 VR in terms of optical quality?

<p>Hi everyone, I would like to know your opinion on this.</p>

<p>I currently use the 55-200 VR as my "versatile" telephoto zoom lens; and a 105 VR as the "low-light" telephoto lens. The 55-200 VR was initially purchased for its compact size and to a lesser extent, low price. (I originally chose it over the 70-300...) After have some experience with the few pro-grade glasses I have, I become somewhat unsatisfied about the optical quality of the 55-200 VR. (and of course, I never liked its built quality, especially its plastic mount all that much)</p>

<p>So for those of you who've used the 70-300, honestly, how is the optical quality of the 70-300 VR? (comparing to the 55-200 VR's optical quality, if you've used both)</p>

<p>...I already know that the 70-300 VR possess quite a few extra "physical" features over the 55-200 VR; such as 100mm of extra coverage, FX/FF coverage (future-proof), a real ring type SWM with fulltime MF and distance window, and a metal mount (now I know it's nice to have it). So these things would obviously be the benefits of the upgrade.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I was just checking the two lenses out over at photozone. The 55-200 is pretty nice optically for the money. The 70-300 in general a better performer. Also the 70- 300 is built better with a superior AF motor.</p>

<p>Does your shooting style allow you to use a tripod as much as possible?</p>

<p>>> "I was just checking the two lenses out over at photozone. The 55-200 is pretty nice optically for the money. The 70-300 in general a better performer. Also the 70- 300 is built better with a superior AF motor."</p>

<p>The photozone.de review seemed to favor the 55-200. Meanwhile other reviewers including Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan more or less pointed out the 70-300 as optically "better". So I don't know how much difference there really is.</p>

<p>>> "Does your shooting style allow you to use a tripod as much as possible?"</p>

<p>Unfortunately no. I'm constantly on the run (often want to keep things discreet), and most the time my subjects are not static neither. I do understand that tripod use would result in better sharpness. But the difference in terms of optical quality between the 55-200 and more expensive lenses (or something sharp like the 50 1.8) seems to be obvious, even when shooting hand held. The 70-300 seems to be something that's nice to have for the reach it has (usable when lighting is good); and I'm just wondering how much of a step up it would be in terms of optical quality.</p>

<p>The 70-300 is a superb lens for its price/performance level. For sports, ( a football game, D200, Shutter priority, Group Dynamic Focus, @ 5 fps, low light-auto iso going as high as 1600 wide open), it outdid my 180/2.8 and 18-200 VR, @ 200 as it is sharper than the 18-200VR and the 180, without VR, can't follow action as well. You get the benefit of a quick twist to 300mm(=450mm) when needed. Its heavy, but easy to carry, hand holdable, and tracks well for following action, and is well built for its price.</p>

<p>>> "it outdid my 180/2.8 and 18-200 VR, @ 200 as it is sharper than the 18-200VR and the 180"</p>

<p>The superiority over the 18-200 VR should be expected. But the fact that it is better than the 180 is surprising.</p>

 

<p>I picked up the 70-300 VR a while back, but it was for an F100 (so I needed FF). Honestly, unless you really need that extra 100mm of reach, you will not notice a significant difference between a 70-300 and a 55-200. Neither is pro grade glass. If, as Shun asks, you can use a monopod or tripod, go for a used 80-200 f2.8.</p>

<p>>> "Shun asks, you can use a monopod or tripod, go for a used 80-200 f2.8."</p>

<p>I almost got that lens, but eventually settled for a 105 micro VR as my low light telephoto, because for my type of shooting (and one of the bodies I have), I find the AF-S and VR to be very important features. Now I'm looking at the 70-300 VR, because although the 105 VR is a good lens, it lacks the reach.</p>

<p>In the tele range, the 70-300 is a bit sharper, on the other end, it has less vignetting. That's about it. Of course, both are not very fast lenses. Both are better than the all-purpose 18-200 VR.</p>

<p>>Both are better than the all-purpose 18-200 VR.<<br>

Yet another misguided swipe at the excellent 18-200 VR. I can guarantee the 18-200 is better than either the 55-200 or 70-300 from 18 to 54mm. </p>

<p>Having had both lenses, my unscientific approach favors the 70-300 mm VR as being sharper at the long end (not to mention better reach). I was mildly suprised and pleased with the possible misuse of the 55-200 mm VR for portraiture with two speed lights and wireless CLS. I was able to stand away from the subject and still get nice head shots. For bashful subjects, this is a good alternative. Anyway, I gave the 55-200 mm to my youngest daughter along with a slightly used D40X. I still have the 70-300 mm, and it spends a lot of time mounted on the camera.</p>

<p>"But the fact that it is better than the 180 is surprising." - yes, considering older post by Stephen:</p>

<p><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00O9as">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00O9as</a></p>

<p>In this post Stephen praised that the: "There is nothing like the "270" /2.8!" - abviously referring to the 180 x 1.5 = 270 lens on the DX format camera. The 70-300 VR lens is also mentioned there.</p>

<p>dave, i'm sure there is no comparison :-)<br>

but seriously, the 55-200mm vr that came with my d40 has proven to be a winner.</p>

<p><strong>how much better is it comparing to the 55-200 VR in terms of optical quality?</strong><br>

I've had both of these lenses. Based on this question. Don't expect too much improvement. It's comparable, I won't say it's better or worse by any margin in terms of optical quality. In fact perhaps I got a lucky copy, but my 55-200 felt sharper. I'd say it's because the technique needed to shoot at 200mm is easier compared to shooting at 300mm. I've not done A-B tests once I've got the 70-300mm... 300mm focal length baby :)<br>

If you want real improvement, get the 70-200/2.8vr. I've loaned that before. And it's stupid sharp wide open. I'd love it for my wildlife stuff, unfortunately, 200mm is just too short for me.<br>

I got the 300mm because of the 100mm extra reach. It's nice, but I'd take the 80-400 if I could find a way to carry it around discretely :P I'm using a D200.<br>

HTHs!</p>

<p>I have the 70-300 VR, my wife uses the 55-200 VR (well, OK, we share the 70-300). I notice no difference in optical quality. The biggest benefit of the 70-300 VR to me, as you said, is that it's a full-frame lens. Further down the road when I can afford a full-frame DSLR, this lens will work to it's capacity. For the time being, I have the benefit of being able to stack several filters on it with no black corners on a DX-format DSLR.</p>