55-200 Vs 70-300G

[aravind raman]

Hi all,

 

Is there any difference between these lenses optically? Recently there

was a thread, in which it was mentioned that 55-200 is comparable to

70-200. Is this true?

 

Aravind

[raymond bradlau]

the main thing would be the 55-200 is a "DX" lens so it will not work on a film body

[armando_roldan]

I can't see how a 55mm lens woudl affect a digital body. If it was 18mm or smaller , I know there would start to be an issue. I used a 15-30mm Sigma on my F100 before and it wasn't until I got to about 22-24mm until the *tunnel* effect or severe viginetting went away. granted it gave some nice special affects but 55mm should no anyhting to film camera. I had a 70-300mm G too, Nice travel lens and cheap but S_L_O_W focussing abut better than any crap I got from tamron in the same focal lenght and price.

[aaron l]

If the 55-200 f 4-5.6 is comparable to the 70-200 f2.8 at $300, Nikon will never sell another 70-200. Ya right.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Aravindhan TS, jul 27, 2005; 12:15 p.m.</B>

<br>

Is there any difference between these lenses optically?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Limiting the context to just what you asked (optics), I'd be very surprised if the 55-200 was *worse* than the 70-300G; but I still don't recommend the lens.  In addition to being very cheaply constructed and aimed squarely at the lowest-common-denominator rank amateur market (which is never a good sign), it's known to be next-to-impossible to focus manually due to the minuscule focus ring (among other reasons), *and* the AF system is crippled by Nikon's use of an el-cheapo screw-drive micro-motor arrangement that IMCO doesn't really deserve the "AF-S" designation.

<br>

<br>

That said, I really don't much care for the 70-300G either.  But given that the 55-200 costs roughly the same as the 70-300D-ED anyway, this isn't really the comparison you should be making.  If you can't afford the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, or even something like the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO HSM (at about half that cost), then look to this "better" version of the 70-300 as a "reasonable" (if still not ideal) compromise.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Recently there was a thread, in which it was mentioned that 55-200 is comparable to 70-200. Is this true?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I don't recall the thread you refer to; but in any event, this would be a specious comparison, at best.  No way that this highly compromised cheap consumer zoom can begin to compete with what is currently one of Nikon's very best "Pro" lenses.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Raymond Bradlau, jul 27, 2005; 06:22 p.m.</B>

<br>

the main thing would be the 55-200 is a "DX" lens so it will not work on a film body

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>armando roldan, jul 28, 2005; 01:13 a.m.</B>

<br>

I can't see how a 55mm lens woudl affect a digital body. If it was 18mm or smaller , I know there would start to be an issue.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Oh, Geez...  Not again!

<br>

<br>

The "DX" issue has <B>ABSOLUTELY NOTHING</B> to do with focal length, PERIOD.  If you cannot (or will not) take that as that, then see

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ClM5">THIS RECENT THREAD</A>, where it was discussed into the ground.

<br>

<br>

[juan_su]

I honestly doubt that the 55-200 is comparable to a superb lens like the 70-200 VR AFS.. It just doens't make any sense if you think about it? Look at the construction of the two and you will see what I mean. Also, in regards to the 70-300G, I wouldn't buy it since you can get the ED version of it for just a bit more.

 

There are alot people that will swear that there is not much difference optically between the two and I can't say I have used the 70-300G too long, but I'm very happy with the 70-300ED. Slow.. yes, but I've produced some amazingly sharp images with it. In any regards, just do your research wisely and think about what you will use it for... eg, digital/film, travel, sports, wildlife.. etc.

 

Cheers,