70-300 VR v. 55-200 VR

[sebastian_peck]

I want to get a relatively cheap telephoto lens with VR. These two seem to be

the best choices. I would like to get the extra reach of the 70-300, but I

hear that the 200-300 is where it performs the worst. 55-200 is so cheap that

it seems like a really good deal, but would it be worth it to spend the extra

250 $ to get the 70-300? ...

 

What do you guys think?

 

Thanks everyone!!

[sebastian_peck]

Oh, And do you think i would get an extra amount of dust problems on the sensor with the 55-200 because of it's plastic mount?

[ilkka_nissila]

The 55-200 DX non-VR vignettes quite a bit at wide apertures on DX cameras. The 70-300 is a FF lens that is it is unlikely to have this problem.

 

While it may be that the 200-300mm range is not so good on the 70-300mm, the 70-200mm range may well be better than that provided by the 55-200mm. Traditionally this has been the case of consumer telezooms: there is a drop at the long end, but where the long end is is up to the user.

 

The 55-200mm is obviously more compact. Usually low price and compactness do not bode well in performance. Especially if one compares two very recent lenses.

[Peter_in_PA]

Thom Hogan has great reviews of the 70-300 and the old 55-200 (non-VR). He gives the

70-300 a SOLID 4 stars (http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm) and he gives the old

55-200 about 3 (http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm).

 

Looking at both, I would guess that the 70-300 is MORE than worth the extra.

[elliot1]

My 55-200 gives me results comparable to my 70-200 vr. Tack sharp, colorful, contrasty - a little slow in focussing but not unreasonable and obviously not as fast aperture wise. I owned the 70-300 for a brief time and sold it because I did not like the image quality.

 

You need to try them both for yourself. I believe the differences in reviews on these two lenses may be a result of some being built better than others. My 70-300 was terrible and my 55-200 is awesome.

[tim_knight]

I have the 70-300vr and I am very happy with its full range. I have been noticing there are 3 ranges I use the most and it is just done automatically while framing the shot. I either shoot 70mm, around 135mm, or 300mm. My point is if you want a long zoom there are times you will want that shot at 300mm. The VR on this lens is great when I consider the number of keeper pictures I get. I found the lens heavier than I thought it would be, but have been shooting a lot of track and have not found myself suffering from the camera around my neck for 3 hrs. Only one negative and that is the skin tone is not as good with this lens as I get with my 50mm/1.8 but I have learned how to fix this this when using Picasa. I might not be giving the lens enough credit since most of my shots are taken during the bright part of the day.

[ilkka_nissila]

Elliot can you post 100% actual pixel crops of shots taken with the 70-200mm and 55-200 at FL = 200mm, f/5.6. Please observe darkening towards the corners at that aperture. Still comparable?

[elliot1]

Ilkka,

 

If you are referring to vignetting, many lenses do this, including my 70-200 and 17-55 which are both pro lenses. There are plenty of software programs that easily correct for this.

 

I own both lenses and have in the past tested them against each other just for fun so I could see for myself what the differences were. I was surprised by the results. You would think that a lens that costs $200 would give significantly different results than a lens costing about 8 times as much. That is not the case, at least with my lenses. I may have a unique lens. I have seven Nikon lenses and the only lens I have had poor results with was the 70-300 which many people say is really good. That is why I made the comment that some may be built better than others. Mine was terrible.

 

Given good lighting conditions or use of flash, both my 55-200 and the 70-200 produce very similar pictures with exceptional quality.

 

Here are a sample shot taken with my d40 and the 55-200 at 200mm, 1/200th shutter speed, f 5.6.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5863038

 

Quality is subjective. We each have our own tastes and preferences. The only way for someone to know if he/she likes a lens is to try it.

 

I am not suggesting that the 55-200 is a replacement for the 70-200 vr. But it is nice to know that for a small amount of money, you can get really great pictures.

[work-page]

The 70-300VR isn't bad from 200-300mm; it's loads better than a fixed Tokina 300/5.6 I used to have in the early 1980's. And not marginally better, really incomparably better. I guess most of the ho-hum comments of the performance in the 200-300 range come from comparing with the 70-135 range. And yes, the 70-300VR does have even better performance at shorter focal lengths. But, provided that you have a good sample that's not been dropped or abused, if you can't get sharp results at 300mm, it's technique rather than the lens that needs a touch-up.

 

With respect to the price difference, be aware that the 70-300VR not only is full frame, but also true AF-S. This means it has an A/M setting for autofocus that allows full manual override without actually going into manual. I find this a godsend, especially for long lenses. Not because I need to touch up focus after AF has locked, but rather because it allows me to yank the focus ring from near to far or the other way round immediately prior to AF. This way I can take the camera out of a recurring AF lock on something unintended.<div></div>

[tom_yuan]

Is it fair to treat the new 55-200mm VR the same as the old 55-200mm? I have heard that they are two very different lenses, and externally they are also different when zoomed (the old one extends 3 times, the new one only has one extension ring)