Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 vs. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 vs. Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6

[NJKILLSYOU]

not sure on which one of these to purchase. id like the 300mm reach but for the af-s version the price is significantly higher. im pretty sure, not positive, that the sigma and tamron will auto focus on my d40. (correct me if im wrong)

i just want to know which of these lenses you would purchase. i dont really care which is better for the money, just which is better.

thanks.

 

[NJKILLSYOU]

nikkor-
Nikon - AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED - 2166 -

sigma-
Sigma - 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens - 5A8306 -

tamron-
Tamron - 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Autofocus - AF017NII-700 -

 

[smyth]

I have the Sigma you linked to. It's a pretty decent lens, and the "Macro" setting is pretty fun to play with. It's not a true macro, but fun nonetheless. It will focus on your D40, because if you look on the page for that lens is says built in motor. I have the same identical lens, and it AFs on my D40.

Example from the Sigma 70-300 and D40 combo:

 

[KmH]

i dont really care which is better for the money, just which is better.

thanks.

You cannot compare a 55-200 mm lens with 70-300 mm lenses.

Nikon's AF-S 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G would be better than the Sigma and the Tamron 70-300 mm lenses.

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED from Nikon

 

[Alan92RTTT]

Unless I missed it neither the Sigma or the Tamron have any kind of Image Stabilization. IMO with a lens of that length that is something you really need unless you'll only be using it from a tripod. The Nikon KMH linked does have VR and is a great lens.

 

[NJKILLSYOU]

im aware of the nikon 70-300, im also aware its more than twice the price of any of the lenses i asked about.

my question is more concerning whether the extra reach of the third party 70-300s would put them above the nikon lens. and if so, which of the two is the better lens.

i shoot mostly nature photos, and i dont want to be kicking myself for not going with the 300mm. but at the same time if the 55-200 is sharper at 200 than the 70-300 is at 300 and is better build quality, id take the 200 anyday.

and im not really worried about vr.

 

[Lipoly]

and im not really worried about vr.

As long as you have compared lenses with and without VR, fine. But I would never buy a lens w/a focal length of 200mm or more w/o VR unless it was going to be attached to a tripod. I just got my 70-300 Nikon and have done several tests w/the VR because I was curious if I could've gotten by w/the Sigma you are considering, and there is just no way I'd be happy w/it w/o a tripod. You will likely find yourself in the sub 1/60s shutter speed occasionally which means a lens w/o VR is going to blur. If $200 is your limit, I'd go w/the 200mm Nikon w/VR...reviews I've seen of it are very favorable.

I just snapped two pics @ 1/20s with and w/o VR @ 300mm. I accidentally had ISO set to 3200 b/c I had just finished low-light testing, but you get the idea.

 

[KmH]

im aware of the nikon 70-300, im also aware its more than twice the price of any of the lenses i asked about.....

You get what you pay for: optical quality, functionality, build quality, and resale value.