affordable telephoto lens for my Nikon D50

bencze · Apr 10, 2007

Hi Everyone,

Currently I own the following lenses (all Nikon):
- 18-55mm AF-S DX (kit lens)
- 24mm f/2.8 AF
- 50mm f/1.4D AF

I am considering getting a telephoto lens. I been looking at the following:
- 55-200mm F/4-5.6G AF-S DX VR (I think this is correct version, the 'new' kit telephoto lens)
- 70-300mm family (G, ED and VR versions; cheap, not cheap and expensive one)
- 70 - 210 mm f/4 - 5.6D
- 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF

70-300mm G - people say it's really not good no wonder its cheap
70-300mm ED - some say it is exactly same quality as the G version with aperture ring and whatnot - might not worth double $$?
70-300mm with VR - most expensive of this family, would sound good but very expensive for me - possible, but not probable that I'll get this one
55-200mm VR - although I don't know much about photography I don't consider my kit 18-55mm a good lens, if this is the bigger brother, I don't know if I can trust it; maybe yes, maybe no...
70 - 210 mm f/4 - 5.6D - can get it used with a bit of luck for not _too_ much, supposed to be good
75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF - seems even better to me, just slower AF and heavier than 70-210mm...

Based on this, any recommendations, please?

Thanks

PS: Oh and btw, I'll be shooting anything, from chicks to birds, landscapes and portraits (not even sure what a telephoto zoom is good for, but I'd rather get one that can last me a few years while I get richer; I hate to blame myself for getting something very cheap and very crap; and it's very hard to find the middle way sometimes).

portersangel · Apr 10, 2007

A really nice lens that I would recomend would be the Tokina 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6. You can get one of these rather inexpensively, around $650.00.
It is a larger lens of coarse so I would definately recommend using a tripod for optimal performance.

forzaF1 · Apr 10, 2007

Save up for the 70-300mm VR. VR is well worth it.

pantherlax · Apr 12, 2007

I'm thinking of getting the 55-200mm F/4-5.6G AF-S DX VR myself. The one that is $250? I personally think its a great price...but I'm still new to the game.

fmw · Apr 12, 2007

pantherlax said:
I'm thinking of getting the 55-200mm F/4-5.6G AF-S DX VR myself. The one that is $250? I personally think its a great price...but I'm still new to the game.

Yes, a great price. If only it were a great lens.

RMThompson · Apr 12, 2007

fmw said:
Yes, a great price. If only it were a great lens.

See, that doesn't HELP anyone fmw. That's just rude, to say it's not great. TELL us your experience... tell us where you read that, don't just leave it at that.

I asked about the same lens with no response.

Are you basing your judgement on something, or merely on price?

:thumbdown:

xfloggingkylex · Apr 12, 2007

Unless you are a namebrand whore, Sigma's 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens is said to be great, and in fact I have one in route to my house so I'll be able to give you a more accurate review. Just something to consider, has nice range, and at 300mm in macro mode can do 1:2 reproduction.

coastietech · Apr 12, 2007

I am very new to this so like I have said in other threads take my .02 with a grain of salt. I owned the 70-300mm f4G lens. It was everything a $130 lens should be. It took pictures. Thats all I can really say about that lens. It wasn't sharp for me at any apperature, at any speed, or on any tripod. My shots consistently came out soft as soon as I zoomed out past the 100mm point. I have read quite a few reviews of the new VR 70-300mm and it gets pretty good marks. I don't know anything about any of the other lenses. I just bought a 70-300mm VR and should be recieving it in about 2 days I can let you know more about it then. I chose the new 70-300mm because with the old one I found my self using the last 100mm quite a bit. It really helps you if you shoot animals or any other kind of wildlife. Hopefully it will compliment my new D80 like the reviews say it will.

RMThompson · Apr 12, 2007

Ken Rockwell:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm#perf

fmw · Apr 13, 2007

RMThompson said:
Ken Rockwell:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm#perf

Since I'm rude let me suggest that so much of Rockwell's site is nonsense that it casts a question mark over all of it. While there is some good information there, there is also enough misinformation to cause serious question. Personally, I would go almost anywhere else for an equipment review. That's about as straightforwardly rude as I can get.

I have the 55-200mm lens in question, not the VR model Rockwell is reviewing on his site. They may not be the same. I was commenting on the lens the poster was talking about, not the one to which you posted a link. I bought it as a travel lens because I'm not willing to carry the heavy and large 70-200 VR lens as a casual tourist lens. I don't carry the 55-200 as a tourist lens either, as it turns out. It has collected dust since the day I tested it.

The 55-200 is made of plastic, through and through. It's poor construction scares me to death. It is cheap Chinese junk. The lens exhibits serious pincushion at the long end of the zoom range and serious softness at the corners of the frame at every zoom setting increasing with focal length. It is quite slow. It is not a great lens. Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for putting their name on it. Sorry. I said what I said because I knew what I was talking about and meant what I said. I thought warning the poster without going into all this lambasting was appropriate. I didn't realize you needed a lengthy explanation. Hope this helps.

pantherlax · Apr 15, 2007

fmw said:
Since I'm rude let me suggest that so much of Rockwell's site is nonsense that it casts a question mark over all of it. While there is some good information there, there is also enough misinformation to cause serious question. Personally, I would go almost anywhere else for an equipment review. That's about as straightforwardly rude as I can get.

I have the 55-200mm lens in question, not the VR model Rockwell is reviewing on his site. They may not be the same. I was commenting on the lens the poster was talking about, not the one to which you posted a link. I bought it as a travel lens because I'm not willing to carry the heavy and large 70-200 VR lens as a casual tourist lens. I don't carry the 55-200 as a tourist lens either, as it turns out. It has collected dust since the day I tested it.

The 55-200 is made of plastic, through and through. It's poor construction scares me to death. It is cheap Chinese junk. The lens exhibits serious pincushion at the long end of the zoom range and serious softness at the corners of the frame at every zoom setting increasing with focal length. It is quite slow. It is not a great lens. Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for putting their name on it. Sorry. I said what I said because I knew what I was talking about and meant what I said. I thought warning the poster without going into all this lambasting was appropriate. I didn't realize you needed a lengthy explanation. Hope this helps.

Um, I actually was indeed talking about the VR, which is also the one to the link that RMThompson posted, and also one of which the original poster was considering.
So when you quoted my first post in this and said that the Nikon 55-200 VR is not a great lense, maybe you misread it all wrong? Because apparently you've never owned the VR version...