Best telephoto for around $200?

[epp_b]

So, the 55-200 will provide better image quality than my Kit zoom (18-55)?

I have both of those lenses and I'd say that they are equally excellent. The 55-200 VR is a great lens and VR is an invaluable feature.

 

[Chewbecca]

I don't know about better image quality, but you can zoom in further with it.

 

[anubis404]

I mean is it better glass than the 18-55?

 

[Chewbecca]

I mean is it better glass than the 18-55?

No, not that I'm aware of. It's just a different length than the 18-55mm.
Both lenses with VR are probably equal quality.
If one is more than the other then it is only because it can zoom further.

 

[anubis404]

So paying over double the price for the 55-200 is only because it has different focal lengths? That doesn't make much sense. The Quality of the kit zoom is fairly low (build and image), so I would have to pay significantly more for a better quality telephoto?

 

[epp_b]

So paying over double the price for the 55-200 is only because it has different focal lengths? That doesn't make much sense.

Uh...yes it does. Longer focal lengths mean more glass, more materials, more distortion correction, larger barrels for fast apertures, and so on and so forth. There's a good reason a super wide-angles are usually a $1000 or less while super telephotos can be several thousands of dollars: there's just more too them.

The Quality of the kit zoom is fairly low (build and image), so I would have to pay significantly more for a better quality telephoto?

OK, the build quality of the kit zoom is pretty pathetic, but the image quality is perfectly acceptable. If you're having problems with it, it might just be the thing behind the camera

$200-$300 is chump-change for a telephoto lens. Serious, fast telephoto lenses like the 400mm f/2.8 telemonster cost thousands of dollars. At around $200, the 55-200 VR is a great deal.

I would say that the 55-200 VR is a bit more solid and has image quality that is as good as or better than the kit lens.

Here are some samples taken using the 55-200 VR on a D40:











These last two were taken at 200mm and they are nice and sharp. For a telephoto lens this cheap to be this good at the long end is saying a lot about image quality.

 

[anubis404]

Uh...yes it does. Longer focal lengths mean more glass, more materials, more distortion correction, larger barrels for fast apertures, and so on and so forth. There's a good reason a super wide-angles are usually a $1000 or less while super telephotos can be several thousands of dollars: there's just more too them.

OK, the build quality of the kit zoom is pretty pathetic, but the image quality is perfectly acceptable. If you're having problems with it, it might just be the thing behind the camera

$200-$300 is chump-change for a telephoto lens. Serious, fast telephoto lenses like the 400mm f/2.8 telemonster cost thousands of dollars. At around $200, the 55-200 VR is a great deal.

I would say that the 55-200 VR is a bit more solid and has image quality that is as good as or better than the kit lens.

Here are some samples taken using the 55-200 VR on a D40:











These last two were taken at 200mm and they are nice and sharp. For a telephoto lens this cheap to be this good at the long end is saying a lot about image quality.

In that case, I may go for the 55-200. I'm just use to my 50mm prime, which has very nice image quality that I got for a mere $100.

Speaking of primes, my ideal telephoto lens would be a 200mm prime. How much do those go for? If its not too much more, I may just save up and get one of those. Lets also hypothetically bump my budget to around $300.