Nikon 70-300 ED or 55-200 VR ??

[roberto calvino]

I use a Nikon D70s and I have $ 250 to $300 to spend.

Please, don't tell me something like "buy a 80-200 2.8 or 300 2.8".

Thank you!!

[curritch]

Roberto I'm not an expert but I'll give you my opinion. I'm semi qualified since I own both the 70-300mm and the 55-200mm VR.

 

I think the 55-200mm VR would be your wise choice. It's not quite as long as the 70-300mm but the VR feature really works and will give you a lot of hand-held possibilities that the 70-300mm won't. The 70-300mm will definitely require a tripod or monopod at its long focal length when used with the DX sensor.

 

If you choose to go with the 70-300mm though I have one for sale at a real brother-in-law price.

[anthony_bez]

"Please, don't tell me something like "buy a 80-200 2.8 or 300 2.8"."

 

Roberto, Buy the two ring 80-200mm f2.8, it is a pro lens that is now a real bargain.

[roberto calvino]

Good advice Anthony!, give me your adress and I will happen to look for the money, Thanks!

 

PS: I'know that $800 for a 200/2.8 is a real bargain.

[roberto calvino]

Curtis, Thanks a lot!

[roberto calvino]

"If you choose to go with the 70-300mm though I have one for sale at a real brother-in-law price".

 

Sorry, but I'm in Uruguay, South America.-

[curritch]

Roberto I've never been to Uruguay so I would be willing to split my transportation fees to hand deliver my 70-300mm lens to your doorstep.

[roberto calvino]

Curtis, it's all right but believe me, it's not a good idea.

[elliot1]

The 55-200, non-vr or vr, is the best value lens for the money you can buy of any Nikon product. Mine (non-vr) gives exceptional color, contrast and clarity. I have done side-by-side shots with it and my 70-200 2.8 and the pictures are virtually identical, which is pretty amazing when you consider the 70-200 costs 8x more. Ok, here is the disclaimer - the 70-200 focusses much, much faster and has a much faster aperture (and also weighs about the same as a brick). Each has their intended purpose but for those on a budget that want fantasic results that look like they came from a more expensive lens, the 55-200 is the way to go.

 

I had a 70-300 and, like many people, find it only good to very good at best, especially between 200mm and 300mm, and promptly sold it. I have yet to meet someone who has and uses the 55-200 with any complaints other than focus speed (which really isn't all that bad, just not as fast as some of Nikon's better lenses).

[roberto calvino]

OK Curtis, thank you very much, your help has been very useful for me.

One more question; is the 70-300 more faster (a little, suposse) than the 55-200?

[roberto calvino]

Sorry, in the last post I wanted to say "Elliot"(not Curtis).