55-200mm vs. 70-300mm?

[robb01]

Looking to add another lens to my gear. Which would be the better telephoto to pick up?

Also, does the Tamron 70-300mm have the VR feature?

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Tamron makes a new 70-300 with VR thats supposed to be pretty decent. But they also have a 70-300 non-is thats like $180. The Canon 70-300 IS USM I think is the best value for the money considering you can often pick them up for around $400 on craigslist.

 

[mjhoward]

If it were my money, i'd pick up the 70-300 VR. It's quite sharp and it serves the purpose of a telephoto better with the extra 100mm focal length. For the money, I think its hard to beat.

 

[robb01]

If it were my money, i'd pick up the 70-300 VR. It's quite sharp and it serves the purpose of a telephoto better with the extra 100mm focal length. For the money, I think its hard to beat.

that was my original thinking, but I've heard the 70-300 gets a bit rough at 2-300

 

[Dao]

From what I read so far, the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens is quit good in term of optical performance and build quality. Especially for a consumer grade lens

 

[Vinny]

The Nikon 70-300 is a great lens - very sharp. Not sure what you mean rough at 2-300. It doesn't get to a f2 at all and it's pretty sharp at 300. The only problem is that it can't take a tele extender.

Here's a crop of a photo at 300mm:

If it were my money, i'd pick up the 70-300 VR. It's quite sharp and it serves the purpose of a telephoto better with the extra 100mm focal length. For the money, I think its hard to beat.

that was my original thinking, but I've heard the 70-300 gets a bit rough at 2-300

 

[robb01]

I was looking at the tamron 70-300mm, sorry

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Whoops, I was thinking you shot canon. I thought the 55-200 was a oddball canon only lens. My fault. I liked the cheapy tamron 70-300 so if they improved on the CA issues and gave it VC, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be pretty good. I would think about grabbing a Kenko 1.4k Pro300 also if you typically shoot outdoors and really want to get some decent reach and still keep your AF.

 

[KmH]

that was my original thinking, but I've heard the 70-300 gets a bit rough at 2-300

Not the VR version of the 70-300. It's one of Nikon's best lens values since it's a FX lens.

I had the VR one and made some serious money with it shooting daytime field sports.

This one: AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is the one that sucks and is barely worth what it costs, and it won't AF on your D5000 anyway.

This one, is a sweet value :thumbup: : AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

 

[Dao]

Here is the review from nikonians

Nikonians News & Blogs: Interviews, Talkshows, News and More

 

[sleist]

70-300mm @ 250mm | D90

Very nice lens.

 

[KmH]

70-300mm @ 250mm | D90

Very nice lens.

Who made the lens? Nikon? Tamron? Sigma?

 

[sleist]

My bad. For some reason I though we were talking Nikon. I know the Nikon 70-300 VR has been tagged by some as soft between 200 and 300. The example I posted was using the Nikon 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G VR at 250mm.