einar

Go for the 300 f4. This is a decent piece of kit, and it works well. Had myself a 70-300, before the vr came out, but

went directly to the shop after using it on an air show. Autofocus to slow for action photography. I went for the 70-200,

f2.8, and combined it with a 1,7 converter. I'm now considering to acquire a 300 prime, and given budget constraints

the f4 is the only option left. Those 55-300 type of lenses will disappoint you. Thake your time and save the money

you need to buy decent pieces of glass.

It's not a fair comparison. The 17-55 is a pro-lens, high quality and the workhorse of any serious Nikon

DX format photographer, while the 18-200mm is the compromise, as any lens with such span in length,

though a good compromise. The 17-55 is a great lens for landscapes, close-up portraits and city

architecture, but it fails on long distant details, wildlife etc. If you want one all-round lens for holidays

and travel, the 18-200 is a good option. If you after one of your cornerstones the 17-55 is the thing, but

you need to complement it with the 70-200 for log range. Here Sigma and others have good alternatives

at a more reasonable price, but if you have had the Nikon 70-200, 2.8 VR II in your hands, you'r sold.

Talk from experience.

 

Einar

Have the Nikon 70-200 VR my self. A great piece of equipment. If I was restricted on budget I would have gone for the Sigma equivalent. Its half the price. Also the Sigma 100-300 F4 might be a good candidate. Tokina 80-200 2.8 is also a good piece of glass. Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro might also be an alternative, at least compared with the Nikon 180mm.