Replacement zoom

[Boz Mon]

I am looking to replace my 55-200 VR zoom, but I dont know where to start. I am shooting with a D300s, and I realized the poor quality of the lens yesterday when I was shooting with it. I dont want to be spending thousands of dollars on a zoom because I dont use it that often, but I would be open to ideas. I already have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I love that thing, so maybe there is a tamron zoom that I should look into?

 

[TSLevin95]

I suggest looking on Amazon for a Sigma zoom lens. They are a fraction of the price of Nikon lenses, and the quality is very good.

 

[Patrice]

If you like the range to 200 mm you might want to look for an older Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D. The push-pull version will auto focus on you camera and will keep you from debtor's jail.

 

[KmH]

Sigma (and other 3rd party lens makers) has lenses that are a fraction of the price for an equivalent Nikon lens because those Sigma (and other 3rd party lens makers) use:
• lower quality materials
• wider acceptable materials tolerances
• wider acceptabe manfacturing tolerances
• fewer Quality Assurance checks

Consequently, some number of lenses Sigma (and other 3rd party lens makers) makes have tolerances stacked such that an individual lens can perform much worse than a lens that has tolerances stacked such that an individual lens can perform much better.

In short the quality, lens to lens, is more variable. That also affects resale value.

 

[Derrel]

I am looking to replace my 55-200 VR zoom, but I dont know where to start. I am shooting with a D300s, and I realized the poor quality of the lens yesterday when I was shooting with it. I dont want to be spending thousands of dollars on a zoom because I dont use it that often, but I would be open to ideas. I already have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I love that thing, so maybe there is a tamron zoom that I should look into?

Nikon 70-300 VR-G, the newish f/4.5~5.6 zoom, with 62mm filter threads, modest weight, decent optics, used $350-$450 at various places.

 

[Boz Mon]

I am looking to replace my 55-200 VR zoom, but I dont know where to start. I am shooting with a D300s, and I realized the poor quality of the lens yesterday when I was shooting with it. I dont want to be spending thousands of dollars on a zoom because I dont use it that often, but I would be open to ideas. I already have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I love that thing, so maybe there is a tamron zoom that I should look into?

Nikon 70-300 VR-G, the newish f/4.5~5.6 zoom, with 62mm filter threads, modest weight, decent optics, used $350-$450 at various places.

Would the image quality be better than my current 50-200?

 

[KmH]

Yes. The AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF VR Nikkor Zoom Lens is likely Nikon's single best lens value.
(Not the el cheapo, non-VR • AF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6G)

 

[Tiller]

You could go with the old Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Can be had for about $650 used.

 

[Boz Mon]

You could go with the old Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Can be had for about $650 used.

How does this lens compare with the nikon posted above? I would really enjoy the constant f2.8 if possible.

 

[hirejn]

Nikon doesn't make bad lenses. What exactly is the "poor" quality of the 55-200 lens and how do you know it's due specifically to the lens? Can you post an example?

 

[Boz Mon]

It just doesn't seem as sharp as my other lenses. Maybe I'm just crazy or something. It's not terrible but I feel like it could be better

 

[orb9220]

Well being that the 55-200vr is my main lens. And has sold me images from my Getty Stock images.
I would think you either have a bad copy or bad match between body & lens.


Saturday Night High Heel Left Behind by Orbmiser, on Flickr

The 70-300vr is better but larger,heavier and cost more than my light compact and cheapy 55-200vr that is a stellar performer for it's price point.

If doing a lot of sports or wildlife need hands down would opt for the 70-300vr as also a stellar performer and better build than my cheapy 55-200vr. Another option to consider is the 55-300vr plastic but metal mount. About 30% smaller and lighter than the 70-300vr.

But personally found the 70-300vr to best be had in the price range when needing the extra reach.


Ladies Carefree & Riding Free by Orbmiser, on Flickr
.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

You could go with the old Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Can be had for about $650 used.

You could go with the old Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Can be had for about $650 used.

How does this lens compare with the nikon posted above? I would really enjoy the constant f2.8 if possible.

Remember lenses are like anything else "you get what you pay for"