55-200 vs. 70-300 vs 70-300

[tom_burke3]

I'd welcome some advice on the relative merits of the 55-200 DX lens, and the two

variants of the 70-300. What I'm looking for is reasonable sharpness, light weight, and not

too much distortion. I recognise that I'm looking at compromises here, and I accept that,

but I would like to know which of these lenses is likely to be the best for occasional use on

a D70. In general I won't use 300mm much, especially given the DX factor; 200mm is

likely to be the longest I'll use with any frequency.

 

I already have the 18-70 DX, and a Tokina 12-24. These lenses meet most of my needs,

but occasionally I feel the need for something a bit longer, and one of these three lenses

would seem to to be the most suitable for my needs. I'm not a pro (I'm a general

landscape/travel/walking-around photographer), and I don't specialise in sports or wildlife

or anything for which I would need (and could justify) a lens such as the 70-200 VR or

anything of that ilk. I'm not sure yet about the 18-200 - I've seen some samples where

there was a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end, and significant CA.

 

I did have a 70-210 f4-f5.6 AF Nikkor, but I didn't like the trombone action, especially

with a DSLR, so I sold it. I do have a good tripod which I even use! (occasionally). Finally

I'm in the UK where prices are higher and second-hand availability is scarce.

[kenneth_rhee]

I had 70-300 ED, and loved it. It's light and gave great pictures. See the review here as well: http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

[frank_skomial]

There was a photograph on a Japaneese site of a new 70-300 with VR. Perhaps the lens is just around the corner ?

[ShunCheung]

Unless your budget is very low, I would not get either the 55-200 G nor the 70-300 G version because of their rather poor built quality. The ED version of the 70-300 is a decent lens for its low price.

 

I have also seen the 70-300mm AF-S VR rumor a few times. Since the PMA is just around the corner, if you are interested in the 70-300, you might as well wait a couple of weeks to see whether a new version will indeed be announced. If nothing else, the price for the old version will likely go down and you can save some money.

[john schroeder]

Buy the 70-300 ED or the Tamron 70-300 LD Macro. I have had the Tamron for several years and it has been a great lens.

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

for traveling lightweight, I'd suggest you look at the 55-200; I have the D-70 plus the 18-70 and got the 55-200 after and really like it.

Have a look at some of my pictures taken with it and see what you think (specifically the following; Tiger-Angles-Golden Gate-Consrvatory).

with these 2 lenses, I can cover everything of interest but note that the lightness comes at a price; I know that if I ever drop it, it probably won't be worth the effort of bending over to pick it up!

hope this helps! cb

[richard_laepple]

I also got the 55-200. I like the light weight, the non-rotating front and the silent af. The zoom ring also feels very good. It's worth the money. I think there is no better choice in this zoom range in the lower price class.

[jimmj46]

I have the 70-300 and love it. I have some great outdoor portraits if you would like to see

drop me a line jimmj46@yahoo.com

[Dennis Peek]

I have the 70-300/4-5.6 ED and the 28-200/3.5-5.6 D AF my wife bought originally as a

travel lens for her N70. I just purchased a D200 and find the 28-200 gives results equal to or

better than my 70-300 and much better than my 24-120/ f3.5-5.6 D AF. I have not tried the

55-200.

[thracian]

I have both 70-300G and 70-300ED. The comments are quite right that 70-300ED has much better built and image quality. But, most of the time I use my 70-300G lens because of its lighweight. Regarding the sharpness, that can be easily overcome with image editing programs. I use my 70-300ED, when I only need to shoot some serious photographs that I wouldn't like to sacrifice any image quality. Otherwise, 70-300G is doing pretty good.

[brian_whittred1]

I haven't shot with the 55-200, though I own a 70-300 G lens. I read the reviews and

asked a lot of questions first and found that most people who had reviewed and tested the

G and ED version of this lens had found no noticable difference in image quality or optical

performance. A number of reviewers even went as far as to say that the G verson probably

has the same ED glass in in a lighter cheaper body. I bought the G version for my D70 to

travel India for 3 months last year. I used it 80% of the time and had no problems other

than the focus searched a bit at the long end some times. I had heard that this lens and

the ED version are a bit soft at the long end, but didn't experience that. Most likely the

softness would be in the corners of the 35mm image cirlce and, as the d70 sensor is

smaller, it would not be using the whole image circle, only the sharpest inner part. The G

version is a bit lighter and more lightly constructed, with a plastic versus metal lens mount

of the ED. The ED verson is also compatible with older manual focus bodies which the G

version is not. This was not an issue for me. For me, the $189 price tag of the G offering

essentially the same performace of the ED version at $450 was the most motivating factor

for me. The new VR version looks attrative. It will have, in addition to vibration reduction

technology, the latest silent wave focus motor which should solve the slow focus and

searching I sometimes experience on mine. I wouldn't be suprised if they used the same

glass though. From the pictures, the body looks very similar to the exisitng versions.