Help me decide 70-300 on my D5000 or an FZ200??

[From78to83]

My kids are in marching band and play soccer. My 55-200mm lens on my Nikon D5000 is just not reaching out far enough. Should I buy yet another lens for my Nikon or should I just get the Panasonic FZ200 that reaches out to 600mm. We are talking roughly the same money!! The Panasonic would be a good all around camera for taking on vacations when I don't want to lug around the DSLR and several lenses.......but........is there a big difference in the digital zoom getting me out to 600mm and the 300mm Nikon lens? I am absolutely a novice and will never have the time to put into venturing too much into the manual features of my D5000. I just can't make the call with the knowledge that I have. Thanks for any and all suggestions!!

 

[robbins.photo]

My kids are in marching band and play soccer. My 55-200mm lens on my Nikon D5000 is just not reaching out far enough. Should I buy yet another lens for my Nikon or should I just get the Panasonic FZ200 that reaches out to 600mm. We are talking roughly the same money!! The Panasonic would be a good all around camera for taking on vacations when I don't want to lug around the DSLR and several lenses.......but........is there a big difference in the digital zoom getting me out to 600mm and the 300mm Nikon lens? I am absolutely a novice and will never have the time to put into venturing too much into the manual features of my D5000. I just can't make the call with the knowledge that I have. Thanks for any and all suggestions!!

Is there a big difference in zoom range, no. The FZ200 does have an equivalent 600 mm zoom, however it's max image size is quite a bit smaller than the image size you get from the D5000, so if you take an image from the D5000 and reduce the image size to 1/2 the original size, then copy the original sized image into this new, smaller frame you get basically the exact same effect as the image the FZ200 produces, so really the 600 mm zoom isn't any better than the 300 mm on your DSLR.

The FZ200 does have that nice F/2.8 which is pretty sweet, just be aware that the lowlight on even the FZ200 is terrible compared to a DSLR. You can't really get usable pictures above ISO800, and even 800 gets pretty grainy. Also the much smaller sensor makes it so the FZ200 just really isn't all that great in low light conditions. Better than most bridge cameras by a little bit, but nothing compared to DSLR.

It is smaller and light weight, and the EVF unlike many is actually pretty usable. Like most bridge cameras you do have a burst fire mode that will allow you to take a few frames pretty quickly, but once it hits that max burst the camera pretty much slows down to a crawl so shooting action can take some getting used to and again it's not quite on par with the DSLR's capabilities in this regard.

But if your doing landscapes and portraits and such and you don't really need the lowlight capabilities it's a nice little camera to have in the bag. Image quality is pretty good, again not on par with a DSLR but if your not doing large prints (anything much over say 8 1/2 x 11) then most likely it will be acceptable for you.

 

[goodguy]

Get the 70-300mm VR, fantastic lens, if you get it used then it should go for around 300$ or less.

 

[brunerww]

Hi 78to83, and welcome to the forum! You might want to think about renting the 70-300mm for 3 days from borrowlenses.com for $54.95 to see what you think of the weight and bulk of carrying it around before buying.

If you like it, you can get one new from Japan for $449 from Big Value via eBay or used at Amazon for around $300.

If you'd prefer not to carry the D5000 and big lens, the $460 (as of this post) FZ200 is a smaller, lighter and more portable alternative with decent image quality.

Here is what shooters are doing with it: Flickr: The Panasonic FZ 200 - Successor to the FZ 150 Pool

I have its predecessor, the FZ150, and like it a lot.

Hope this is helpful!

Bill

 

[Braineack]

My kids are in marching band and play soccer. My 55-200mm lens on my Nikon D5000 is just not reaching out far enough.

I took these with the 70-300 VR from box seats WAYYYYYYYYYYYY up high with my D5100:

to get an idea of where I was sitting look here: http://www.dillonpartners.com/wp-content/gallery/fedex-field/fedex-field.jpg

see the box seat windows above the row of yellow seats? I was in one of the boxes by that yellow banner...


In otherwords: get the 70-300mm.

 

[From78to83]

Thanks everyone. I have decided to go with the 55-300mm AF-S VR lens from Nikon. I have a buyer for my 55-200mm lens and am looking forward to reaching out a bit further!!

 

[SCraig]

Thanks everyone. I have decided to go with the 55-300mm AF-S VR lens from Nikon. I have a buyer for my 55-200mm lens and am looking forward to reaching out a bit further!!

The 55-300 is not quite as good as the 70-300. I'd REALLY recommend the 70-300 lens over that one.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks everyone. I have decided to go with the 55-300mm AF-S VR lens from Nikon. I have a buyer for my 55-200mm lens and am looking forward to reaching out a bit further!!

I'd go with Scraig on this one, the 70-300 mm is a much better lens overall, it will give you better results than the 55-300.

 

[goodguy]

Thanks everyone. I have decided to go with the 55-300mm AF-S VR lens from Nikon. I have a buyer for my 55-200mm lens and am looking forward to reaching out a bit further!!

The 55-300 is not quite as good as the 70-300. I'd REALLY recommend the 70-300 lens over that one.

Thanks everyone. I have decided to go with the 55-300mm AF-S VR lens from Nikon. I have a buyer for my 55-200mm lens and am looking forward to reaching out a bit further!!

I'd go with Scraig on this one, the 70-300 mm is a much better lens overall, it will give you better results than the 55-300.

Them are smart fellas, listen to them!!!

The 55-300mm is cheaper then the 70-300mm VR but there is a good reason for that, you get what you pay for, its worth the little extra cash and get the superior lens, I am sure in the long run you will not be sorry.