200mm. or 300mm lens?

[turnbeaugh5]

I have a Nikon D40x. I need some zoom and can't decide between the Nikon AF-S VR DX zoom f/4-5.6G ED 55-200mm, or the 70-300mm. f/4.5-5.6g. I would mainly be using it for outdoor sports. I'm trying to decide if the extra 100mm. is worth twice the price or if 200mm. would be sufficient. Thanks

 

[usayit]

Depends which sport...

For Polo for example, I found 200mm way way too short.

 

[JimmyO]

Well from what i hear the 70-300mm is kind of a waste of money (over priced) while the 55-200 is a total steal, so i would go with that one. You can always crop a tad. IMO

 

[Mav]

I would say that for outdoor sports you'd probably be better off with a 300mm. Yeah, 200mm can be too short for some things, and 400 is probably overkill. 300 is just about right from shooting some of my cousin's soccer games. If you're shooting baseball and wanted to get to an outfielder, you'd most definitely want a 300.

Just be forewarned that both of these lenses are "slow" though, with f/5.6 maximum apertures at the long end. In marginal light or at night you'll have to push the ISO big time (lower quality, grainier photos) to keep the shutter speeds up to keep the players frozen when they're moving. Otherwise you'll have sharp grass but blurry moving players. That's what the f/2.8 (2 stops faster) professional level telephoto zooms are for.

 

[usayit]

slow yes.. but OP did say outdoor sports ( I am assuming bright daylight or overcast). It has never been an issue with my 100-400L.