Telephoto lens

hamlet · Sep 18, 2013

The 70-300 costs about $675 here.

SCraig · Sep 19, 2013

hamlet said:
The 70-300 costs about $675 here.

Is there any place around you that rents lenses? Perhaps you should rent one for a few days and decide for yourself if it is something that you want. Perhaps the 70-300 range is not what you are looking for. It is rather long for landscapes.

In the end you have to decide for yourself whether or not you want a particular lens. You asked "What are some good Telephoto lenses in your opinion for the Nikon 3200? The more you can zoom in the better." The 70-300 fits that criteria. Good lenses in that range are not cheap and cheap lenses are not worth having. That's the bottom line. I paid around $600 for my 70-300 several years ago and went through the same decision, but in the end it was worth it TO ME. It may not be worth it TO YOU but that is a decision you have to make. There are alternatives; buy used, buy another brand, buy a different focal length, buy a lower quality lens. All we can do is provide advice based on our experiences and after that it is your choice.

Usul · Sep 19, 2013

I don't know why do you need teltphoto lens for landscapes but I'd suggest you to buy 70-300. Becouse when you use FX lenses on DX body you get the sharpest central part of image a lens produce. So if you are not a professional and don't make picures for sale you won't be upset with IQ of this lens and if you need something better you need at least $1500 more to afford it. Of course maybe you will be happy even with 55-300 mm but I'd try it before to buy.

Braineack · Sep 19, 2013

hamlet said:
Here is a comparison i found:

Flickr Search: Nikon, 55-300mm, wildlife

Flickr Search: Nikon, 70-300mm vr, wildlife

hamlet said:
The more i look at these comparisons the less i'm convinced that the 70-300 is that much better.

that's because you're comparing the 55-300 to the 70-300mm NOT the 55-200 to the 70-300mm.

Having used both the 55-200 and the 55-300mm, it is MUCH better optically. The 70-300mm should be on par with that, maybe a little better, but has a much better focus as I've mentioned.

you should be looking at these: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Nikon, 55-200mm, wildlife

where it's clear there's a drop in IQ.

sashbar · Sep 19, 2013

hamlet said:
What about some off-brand lens like this one?

Opteka 650-2600mm High Definition Telephoto Lens for: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics

Forget it. Nikon 70-300 in a no-brainer.

sashbar · Sep 19, 2013

hamlet said:
I am very strongly leaning towards the 55-200mm. I cant find myself justifying the money for a mere 100mm extra, it just doesn't make sense to me.

70-300 has better image quality. It operates better. It is simply a better lense. I have both. 55-200 is gathering dust somewhere in a cupboard, and I do not even bother to put it on ebay.
Your mileage may vary, but to me 70-300 was money well spent. 55-200 was just a waste of money.

sm4him · Sep 19, 2013

OP, I understand completely your reluctance to spend more money for what doesn't seem like that big of a return on your investment.

All I can do is tell you my OWN experience. I had the 55-200; I was NOT unhappy with it, it seemed just fine to me. But after upgrading to the 70-300, I'd say the difference was absolutely worth the price of the 70-300. I've since moved to a Sigma 150-500, but I would not give up my 70-300 for anything. On the other hand, after having the 70-300 for a few months, I *gave* the 55-200 to a friend's daughter rather than even trying to resell it.

I know it's a tough decision, because it's hard to truly SEE the difference when you don't have both lenses to try out. And I certainly can't tell you what the right decision is FOR YOU. But I *can* tell you, if I had it to do over again, I would just skip the extra step of buying that 55-200 and go for the 70-300. It is MUCH better glass, imo.

I can't speak to the 55-300, though, as I've never used one. Possibly that would be a decent compromise...but personally, I'd just go for the 70-300. I think it's one of the best Nikon lenses you can get for the money.

hamlet · Sep 19, 2013

sm4him said:
OP, I understand completely your reluctance to spend more money for what doesn't seem like that big of a return on your investment.

All I can do is tell you my OWN experience. I had the 55-200; I was NOT unhappy with it, it seemed just fine to me. But after upgrading to the 70-300, I'd say the difference was absolutely worth the price of the 70-300. I've since moved to a Sigma 150-500, but I would not give up my 70-300 for anything. On the other hand, after having the 70-300 for a few months, I *gave* the 55-200 to a friend's daughter rather than even trying to resell it.

I know it's a tough decision, because it's hard to truly SEE the difference when you don't have both lenses to try out. And I certainly can't tell you what the right decision is FOR YOU. But I *can* tell you, if I had it to do over again, I would just skip the extra step of buying that 55-200 and go for the 70-300. It is MUCH better glass, imo.

I can't speak to the 55-300, though, as I've never used one. Possibly that would be a decent compromise...but personally, I'd just go for the 70-300. I think it's one of the best Nikon lenses you can get for the money.

I do appreciate your inputs and you are probably right about the 70-300. By the way, if i'm going to spend close to $700 on a Long-focus lens, are there any better lenses from Sigma for instance? Or is the 70-300 the best i can get for $700?

ph0enix · Sep 19, 2013

hamlet said:
sm4him said:

OP, I understand completely your reluctance to spend more money for what doesn't seem like that big of a return on your investment.

All I can do is tell you my OWN experience. I had the 55-200; I was NOT unhappy with it, it seemed just fine to me. But after upgrading to the 70-300, I'd say the difference was absolutely worth the price of the 70-300. I've since moved to a Sigma 150-500, but I would not give up my 70-300 for anything. On the other hand, after having the 70-300 for a few months, I *gave* the 55-200 to a friend's daughter rather than even trying to resell it.

I know it's a tough decision, because it's hard to truly SEE the difference when you don't have both lenses to try out. And I certainly can't tell you what the right decision is FOR YOU. But I *can* tell you, if I had it to do over again, I would just skip the extra step of buying that 55-200 and go for the 70-300. It is MUCH better glass, imo.

I can't speak to the 55-300, though, as I've never used one. Possibly that would be a decent compromise...but personally, I'd just go for the 70-300. I think it's one of the best Nikon lenses you can get for the money.

Click to expand...

I do appreciate your inputs and you are probably right about the 70-300. By the way, if i'm going to spend close to $700 on a Long-focus lens, are there any better lenses from Sigma for instance? Or is the 70-300 the best i can get for $700?

It's a great lens for the money. While $700 is not a lot of money for a lens (especially telephoto), this particular one can be had for under $350 refurbished in the U.S. Maybe you can find one locally. Another option would be to get a used one.

hamlet · Sep 19, 2013

I guess i can save up a little while practicing with my 18-55mm. I've still got a lot to learn about all the technical terms, lighting, lenses, more and more.