Nikon 70 - 300 or 55 - 200?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by rmh159, May 24, 2009.

  1. rmh159

    rmh159 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'm interested in getting a telephoto and wanted to get some opinions on these two lenses. The VR versions are about $250 apart (which isn't a big deal) but I'm wondering if the 300mm zoom is really worthwhile. For the most part I'd use it for portraits and street shooting. Any advice? Can anyone speak to the lenses performance? Also, I likely won't have an opportunity to try each lens out before purchasing.
     
  2. farmerj

    farmerj TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
  3. AtlPikMan

    AtlPikMan TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Atlanta, Ga
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    What other lenses do you have? For portraits and street shots im nice pics from it not so sure that would be the best range. If i had to choose between the two, id go with the 70-300vr. Ive seen very nice images from it.
     
  4. epp_b

    epp_b No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    True North Cold and Freezing
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If you are looking at the 55-200, forget the non-VR version. The VR version has many improvements other than VR; it's a very good lens, especially for the price.

    The 70-300 is also good, but pretty expensive for what is a plain-old variable aperture 70-300 lens.

    For portraits, you might consider a prime like an 85/1.8. If you don't mind manual focus (and possibly manual metering, depending on your camera), 105/2.8 Series E lenses can be had for about $100 on eBay.

    Uh... noise has nothing to do with the lens other than the indirect effect of having to adjust your metering for a long focal length if you're hand-holding, but, then, that's more of a problem with the thing behind the camera ;)
     
  5. Crazydad

    Crazydad No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Leander, TX
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Of the 2 listed, the 70-300VR is definitely the choice. I have it and I think it is a great lens. And at 200 it is a lot sharper than the 55-200. Thom Hogan (whose review is listed above) even has it in his basic FX and DX kits. What Does Thom Use?

    It is a bit slow in lower light, but if you are shooting still subjects the VR does work well.

    Can't really speak for the Tamron or Sigmas, but they do give f/2.8 for not much more money and they do get good reviews so you may want to check them out.
     
  6. turnbeaugh5

    turnbeaugh5 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would agree with farmerj. Although I don't have the Tamron lens, you will want the faster lens in the long run. I have the 55-200 lens and am very happy with it, but it is very slow.
     
  7. smyth

    smyth TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 70-300 is a pretty decent lens when there is enough light to use it. It's much better than the 55-200.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
55-200 or 70-300 nikon
,
55-200 vs 70-300 nikon
,
compare nikon 55-200 and 70-300
,
compare nikon 55-200 vs 70-300
,
nikon 55 200 af vs 70 300 af lenses
,
nikon 55 200 vs 70 300
,
nikon 55-200 vr vs 70-300 vr
,

nikon 55-200 vs 70-300

,

nikon 70-300 vs 55-200

,
nikon 70:300 vs 55:200