Question regarding lens range and what lens combination to go with

[CaptainNapalm]

I am looking to get my first lens, aside from the kit 18-55 that already came with my d5100. As many of you suggested, I spent a good month shooting with my kit lens to learn what type of shooting i mainly do which would help me decide on what to get next. Well it turns out that the lack of sufficient zoom is my biggest issue. I really enjoy shooting animals and wildlife and the 55mm just doesn't cut it for that. Therefore, I have a few questions:

1. Will getting something in the 55-200mm lens be sufficient zoom for shooting wildlife or would the 300mm range be more appropriate?
2. Should I get a 55-200 or 55-300 and use it along with my 18-55 kit lens, or should I sell my 18-55 and invest my money in a 18-200 or 18-300 which covers all those ranges?

In regard to number 2, I've done my research and I completely hear mixed suggestions. Some argue that the 18-55 and 55-200 or 300 are excellent combos and won't burn a hole in your pocket. They are also much lighter lenses and much less expensive than investing in a 18-200 or 18-300 lens. Others argue that the 18-200 or 300 has better optics and much better build quality well worth the extra money and they also argue that switching lenses is such a hassle and couldn't imagine changing from the kit lens to the 55-200 all the time.

Therefore in your opinion should I go for the 300mm range vs the 200mm and should I carry around two lighter (less expensive) lenses in that range or swap them both for a more expensive all in one lens? I should mention that I could afford spending the few extra hundred on the 18-200/300 lens but I would much rather not spend that if I don't have to.

Thanks in advance!

 

[KmH]

The 300 mm will work better for wildlife, unless you have exceptional field craft skills.

A 50-500 mm, 150-500 mm zoom would be even better than a 300 mm zoom, but cost more.

Less expensive lighter lenses mean plastic construction (less durable), and lens elements made from resin instead of glass (reduced image quality).

Here is an eagle shot, straight out of a crop sensor camera (SOOC) made with a Sigma 150-500 mm zoomed to 500 mm the second day I had the lens. The eagle was about 100 feet away and was keeping a close eye on my approach.

This is after a heavy crop and some editing, the final image made from 1 of the other 40 or so images I shot of that eagle that day:

 

[TonysTouch]

The 55-300 is better optically at 200 than the 55-200 at 200. Large zooms tend to get soft or have distortion edges at the ends of their focal range. Popphoto has a chart for the lenses they test that shows how well lenses do at different focal lengths. All-in-ones are nice for travel and walking around, but for IQ, I would stick with a multi-lens setup.

 

[coastalconn]

Just be prepared, Once you start shooting wildlife it can become very addicting! If you get really into birds, you will have to learn the art of stalking also. If you get really addicted you will want a 500mm lens.. I had and sold the 55-300 a year ago. Optically it is pretty good for the price if you can find a used one. I'm not sure about pricing in Canada, but the Tamron 70-300 VC is a better lens and cheaper after rebate vs the retail of the 55-300. Just another one to consider depending on Canadian prices...

 

[TonysTouch]

I prefer Nikon's 70-300mm over the 55-300mm. A big reason is that it is FX-compatible.

 

[Solarflare]

With wildlife, you just cannot have too much zoom.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Thank you all for your feedback so far. Based on it, I will likely go for the larger zoom (up to 300mm) and consider the 70-300mm from Nikon or Tamron.
I think much of the zoom desire for me also comes from getting use to that x35 optical zoom i shot with on my Canon SXHS40 bridge camera which blew up a bird high up on a tree from a mile away. Cheers

 

[ScottMac]

Seriously consider the Nikon 70-300 VR. It is substantially faster in focusing than the 55-200 and the 55-300 lenses. Optically, it is excellent to about 200mm and thereafter, sharpness falls off a bit to become good, does not suffer from the same focus breathing issues in either of 55-xxx mm lenses and it is designed and built for an FX body, should you ever wish to upgrade. Sure, it is heavier, sure it is more expensive, but it is better built and more robust. Unless you can justify and afford to go for the more exotic, longer and/or faster lenses, this is currently the best "poor-man's wildlife" lens available for Nikon under US$600. In my view, anything else will either be much more expensive, or will be a compromise in one way or another.....