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

<p>Hello all.<br>

I am looking into buying a new lens, I have the D5000 and would like a telephoto lens with a bit of zoom. I'll be photographing wildlife and landscapes. I am not sure what lens to buy, I don't have too much money to spend so I was aiming more towards the 55-200mm. What would you suggest? Will the 55-200 give me enough zoom to get close enough to wildlife or is the extra 100mm on the 70-300 worth the money?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>If you can manage it, go for the 70-300. I used an 18-200 on my D70 for awhile and now have the 70-300 for my new D90 and I am thankful for the extra reach and the better image quality. I use the 70-300 a lot on the street as well for candid portrait-type stuff. Good lens, at least for my level of work at this point.</p>

<p>/me votes for 70-300VR! But it really depends on the "wildlife" you are after, and how close you can get to them. For example I was shooting at Farnes Islands a few weeks back, the focal range I mainly used was from 70 to 300mm (I was using 2 lenses for this range). Last weekend I went to a wildlife park to shoot birds in flight and other critters, <a href="http://wolfbrother.blogspot.com/2010/06/eagle-heights-husky-mania.html">and the 70-300VR performs admirably</a>.</p>

<p>Regards,<br /> Alvin</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well thanks for the replies so far, really it would be birds, foxes, hares just normal wildlife really! So you do you rekcon I should stump up cash for the 70-300 VR? If so reccomend anywhere to get it form? Also if I decide to be cheap people talk about the Sigma, is it worth it?<br /> Thanks</p>

<p>If you are going to mail-order purchase, stick with the biggies: Adorama, B&H, Ritz, maybe Cameta. Avoid the small unknowns who offer what looks like a better deal--it's probably not. I don't know about the Sigma, someone else can answer that. </p>

<p>Ok thank you guys!<br>

I guess I best have a look around at some prices and see what comes out best!</p>

<p>The 70-300 VR is quite expensive because of the VR option. It is questionable how useful VR is for landscapes and animals. You can handhold an f5.6 lens in most daylight situations for landscapes, or even sports, since shutter speeds of 1/500 to 1/750 are enough to stop camera motion anyway. Serious sunrise/sunset landscapes at f16 are going to require a tripod no matter what. Typically you will be taking pictures of animals under good sunny conditions anyway so again VR is not going to have a substantial impact. VR may be useful for birds in flight, but again I suspect high shutter speeds, which negate the need for VR, are likely going to be desired anyway to freeze the action.</p>

<p>The image quality of the 70-300 is very good but not in the excellent range of some of the slightly more expensive used lenses that are available. It takes time and patience and a good knowledge of eBay, keh.com, adorama.com and bhphotovideo.com, but deals can be found for a couple of used Nikon lenses that would fit your requirements and deliver excellent image quality even wide open. The Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S and Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S. For your camera you must buy AF-S lenses to have autofocus. I just bought a used 80-200/2.8 AF-S for $75 more than a new 70-300 VR. This is not a typical price but you can usually find one within $250 of the 70-300 VR. The 300/4 AF-S is generally worth still more. Neither of these lenses have VR and both are much heavier and bulkier than the 70-300 VR, but both are still handholdable. A monopod is preferred if not just for taking the stress off of back and shoulders for all day shooting. I just bought a used TC-14E II for $125 to go with the 80-200/2.8 and the combo are excellent and would still have better image quality than the 70-300 VR. </p>

<p>So, you do have options. I know the extra 100mm of the 70-300 VR would be very useful but , if you must buy new, I suggest the extremely affordable 55-200 VR until you develop your skills and learn more. </p>

<p>I always recommend camera manufacturer lenses over third party lenses but if you are going to consider Sigma make sure the lens will work on your camera. If you can stretch your budget beyond the Nikon 70-300 VR then consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8, but again make sure it will work on your body. Again I'd prefer a used Nikon lens to a similar new Sigma lens.</p>

<p>Thanks John, great information.<br>

I was leaning towards the 55-200mm because I've only been photographing a few months and it's just annoying not being able to get close enough to a group of local foxes in my park to take a good enough photo, so was looking for a decent lens, but like you said the extra 100 is good but not to sure if I would like to take the big plunge so soon.<br>

Would I still get a good picture with the 55-200mm from a reasonable distance? Yes, I would much rather buy Nikon lenses than third party but its just the Sigma come up rather cheap.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make some good lens too. Its just not as good as Nikon in the 70-300 budget zoom department. BTW: Super telephoto are super expensive. 70-300VR is just an entry plunge. Do watch your budget, (IMHO) Both 55-200 or 70-300 VR are good start.</p>

<p>Steven,<br>

Part of the question is also how much your budget can take the extra hit of the 70-300VR. Personally, I do not think this lens is that expensive, for what it delivers. It's a good lens. So is the 55-200VR, but there are reasons why it's cheaper: the build quality is not equal; optically, though, it delivers.<br>

For the wildlife you mention, foxes and hares can use the extra length, since you need to keep some distance. They're too fast gone when you come too close... To me, 200mm would be a bit short for that.</p>

<p>But, it depends on how flexible your budget is. There is also cropping, in case you do not wish to make very large prints.</p>

<p>Well, If I was to get the 70-300mm I would have to wait a bit to get the extra money.<br>

But I could get the 55-200mm right away, and as I'm already lacking a telephoto lens that could be a plus. See thats the thing I don't want to loose range but would 200 be close enough do you think?<br>

I doubt I would be producing that big prints of yet so I guess I could crop?</p>

<p>I'd say, save up for the 70-300, it's definitely worth the wait. Or, see if you can borrow a 55-200 to see if it's sufficiently long enough for you. For wildlife, never long enough ;-)</p>

<p>I went from 55-200VR - 70-300VR, after which I took the leap to the 300/4 :3 I still have the 70-300VR with me as it's extremely portable, convenient, good IQ and has VR :D</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

 

<p>I have the D5000 and my vote is for the 70-300. In fact, that's probably the next lens I will get. (I have to budget for camera equipment, so it may be on my Christmas list.)</p>

<p>When I bought my camera, I bought the 55-200. (I didn't have a clue what to get, so I bought the 2 kits lenses.) The 55-200 has given me some nice pictures, but it's not long enough to get some of the backyard birds. As an example, we had goldfinches on a feeder over the winter and I had to do a lot of cropping to get a nice image. I don't regret buying the 55-200, but a year later, I think the 70-300 would be a more useful "everyday" zoom.</p>

<p>Great answers Alvin & Lisa. I guess I'll save and get the 70-300 :) Thanks guys and I'll get some pictures up when I get it, might have to borrow money from the parents!</p>

<p>the 70-300 is a far better option than either the nikon 55-200 or the sigma variant for what you want to do. save your pennies if you have to, until you can purchase this. your other option is to get the 55-200 and crop the pic a bit.</p>

<p>also, with 3rd party lenses and entry-level nikon DSLRS like the d5000, the issue is the camera's lack of a focus motor. you dont want to have to MF when shooting wildlife or anything which moves if you can avoid it. also, some of the 3rd party lenses with focus motors have micromotors--not AF-S/HSM motors--which are slower than screw-drive mechanisms. so, research accordingly.</p>

<p>The following thread asked essentially the same question:<br /> http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00VVrS<br>

<br /> I have two images in that thread taken with the 70-300mm VR. Note the tiny bug the hummer's carrying in his beak in the second image. The thread below also has some helpful discussion, and another image I made with the same lens.<br /> http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00RZ3A</p>

<p>I very much recommend the 70-300mm VR. It's amazing, particularly for the price and light weight. The non-VR version of this lens is not nearly as good optically. I also have a Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S, which is great, but not that much better, and far more expensive. It's also much more difficult to hand-hold when that's necessary.</p>

<p>A final comment. 300mm is already at the short end for photographing wildlife or birds. Anything that stops at 200mm will make things more difficult.</p>

<p>Adorama has the Nikon 70-300 VR refurbished by Nikon for $459.95. New it's $529.95. That's $70 less than new and $60 more than the Sigma 70-300 OS which is $399. I think that if money is tight, the refurbished lens is a good buy.</p>

<p>The 55-200 is the best tele-zoom small money is going to get you. Given a choice I'd prefer the 70-300 for the added range and build quality. Personally in that price range I'd choose nothing but Nikon.</p>

<p><em>"is the extra 100mm on the 70-300 worth the money?"</em> Yes (but only if you are talking about the VR version and only if have the extra money to pay for it).</p>

<p>I own the 70-300 VR and its well worth the money..its my favorite lens and quite capable in good light. I think the 55-200 will leave you wanting more. At some point you may want to go longer..but then you are getting into a whole new realm. I went that root and came back to my trusty 70-300 which is light enough long enough for most of what I shoot.</p>

<p>I've got both. The 70-300 VR is much much more quality. I got the 55-200 on eBay for a good price to test if I would rather like the 70-200 f2.8 or the 70-300. Although there is a big difference of price, I choose the 70-300 for the reach.<br>

The 55-200 is very light but it's plastic and smaller glass.</p>

<p>A few months ago I went looking for a similar lens for my D5000. After coming up dry on 2nd hand, I bought a Tamron 70 - 300. Cheaper than the Nikon 55 - 200. Feels clunky compared to the Nikon lenses, but alot more solid than the 55 -200. AF is very slow, but at f8 it takes really good photos.<br>

From what I read the Sigma has faster AF, but I see alot of sites say Tamrons tend to be a bit sharper. Maybe consider that if budget is really tight and you don't want to wait to save.<br>

And yes, I am now looking to upgrade down the line to the Nikon 70 - 300 VR. But until then I have a pretty usefull lens to tide me over.</p>

<p>Save up and get the 70-300mm VR for what you are wanting to shoot. I initially bought the 55-200mm VR, and while it's no slouch, it just doesn't have enough reach. Since buying the 70-300mm VR, the 55-200mm VR hasn't been on the camera once. I debated which one I should get, and wish I had gone with the 70-300. In the long run, it would have been cheaper.</p>

<blockquote>Would I still get a good picture with the 55-200mm from a reasonable distance?<br /></blockquote>

<p>here's the catch between the two lenses. the 70-300mm is very good for portraits or street photography where you can take spyshots to people whom you want to take in their candid moments without the guts of telling them. but the only thing is, its very pricey.<br>

now comes the 55-200mm VR. take note, they are both VR, therefore, very useful. what makes the 55-200mm VR great is that you can make it as a "walk-away lens". its a very good partner of the kit lens 18-55mm VR. i mean you can take snapshots with it even on some limited space. the 70-300mm VR is quite hard to be "walkaway lens". eithere you or your friends should be a distant away in order for them to fit in the frame...<br>

www.cameralabs.com says that the 55-200mm VR has similar focal range/ratio equivalent with the 70-300mm VR. the only difference between the two is that the latter is pricier, build quality is better, it has a SWM (therefore, faster) while the former is cheaper, light (i once brought the 70-300mm VR with me the whole day, my hand suffered so much strain. take note i just mounted it with a Nikon D5000 like you which is lighter compared to a D300, 700 or D3S.</p>

<p>the choice is actually yours. <em><strong>don't be fooled by the "macho looks" that the lens will project in you but look for that will give image quality in your photo</strong></em>...</p>