Telephoto lens

[hamlet]

I am very strongly leaning towards the 55-200mm. I cant find myself justifying the money for a mere 100mm extra, it just doesn't make sense to me.

You would not be paying for only an extra 100mm, there is a huge difference in optical quality between those two lenses.

I have both the 55-200 and 70-300 and there is a WORLD of difference between the two. I do not like my 55-200 lens and to be honest I'm not even certain where it is any more. I threw it in a closet and haven't seen it an a few years. It is soft, it has low contrast, and in my personal opinion is not a good lens. If it broke today it wouldn't bother me and I certainly wouldn't replace it.

The 70-300 is an excellent lens. It is sharp from one end to the other, focuses fast, and does a great job. It probably gets used more than any other lens I own. If it broke today I'd order another one just like it.

I have to always put a disclaimer that i'm speaking out of complete ignorance. Is there any way i can see the difference?

 

[SCraig]

I have to always put a disclaimer that i'm speaking out of complete ignorance. Is there any way i can see the difference?

Not ignorance, just inexperience.

You could probably see the difference if you had both lenses. Take a shot of the same thing with both lenses and then compare the results. I never did that however I have a couple that are more or less similar. Admittedly they are not exactly the same, not even close, but they are about as close as I can find showing a similar subject under similar conditions. I don't have many photos taken with the 55-200 because I never did like it.

The first is a California Condor I shot at the Grand Canyon with my old D60 and the 55-200. Note how grainy and ugly the background is, how soft the focus is. It was shot at ISO 400, 1/800 second @ f/11 in bright sunlight so there is no reason for motion blur. I'm not sure of the subject distance, but it was probably about 20 meters. The image is probably cropped about 50%.

The second is a Hyacinth Macaw shot at the Nashville Zoo with the same D60 but with the 70-300 lens. Now how much smoother the background is, the tack-sharp focus. It was shot at ISO 400 as well, same camera, 1/400 second @ f/5.6 in bright sunlight. This one was certainly closer than the Condor, probably 8 meters or so, and the image is not cropped much.

California Condor ...

Hyacinth Macaw ...

 

[hamlet]

Here is a comparison i found:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Nikon, 55-300mm, wildlife

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Nikon, 70-300mm vr, wildlife

 

[hamlet]

The more i look at these comparisons the less i'm convinced that the 70-300 is that much better.

 

[goodguy]

As Craig said its much more then extra 100mm but so much more.
I will not add to it as I think Craig said it quit nicely but I do want to add that you are not getting extra 100mm but really more then DOUBLEon your DX camera.
The 55-200mm is a DX lens hence on your camera the effect is exactly 55-200mm while the 70-300mm VR on your camera reaches 450mm which on DX body is more then double.
I think it will be a great shame to buy the 55-200mm and then if you will not be happy to get the better lens.

I want to add I bought mine used on kijiji for 280$ and my 70-300mm VR works like new, amazing and I just love it.
Buying used lenses is not so complicated and in most cases these are well made stong tools that can last a long time, all my lenses (except my 50mm 1.8G) are used and I am happy with all and when I will buy another lens be sure it will be used, you simply save so much money this way.

 

[SCraig]

The more i look at these comparisons the less i'm convinced that the 70-300 is that much better.

I don't see anything on the pages, however the title of the second one indicates that it is the 55-300 lens, not the 55-200.

 

[goodguy]

The more i look at these comparisons the less i'm convinced that the 70-300 is that much better.

Seems like you made up your mind, good luck and enjoy your new lens

 

[hamlet]

The more i look at these comparisons the less i'm convinced that the 70-300 is that much better.

I don't see anything on the pages, however the title of the second one indicates that it is the 55-300 lens, not the 55-200.

Yes, sorry. My mind sometimes had a mind of its own.

The more i look at these comparisons the less i'm convinced that the 70-300 is that much better.

Seems like you made up your mind, good luck and enjoy your new lens

I am a skeptic at heart, i will probably second guess myself a hundred more times before i make up my mind. Right now i'm just trying to convince myself but its so hard because i lack basic knowledge of how lenses are supposed to work.

 

[hamlet]

Here is the correct difference:

Flickr Search: Nikon, 55-200mm vr, wildlife

Flickr Search: Nikon, 70-300mm vr, wildlife

The 55-200 looks so much more cold. Does that make sense to anyone? I feel like there are less colours when compared to 70-300.

 

[480sparky]

The camera behind the lens makes a difference, as well as the skill of the person behind the camera.

 

[hamlet]

the price for the 70-300mm is more than 3 times the price of the 55-200. I just feel that its hard to justify that price difference.

 

[goodguy]

the price for the 70-300mm is more than 3 times the price of the 55-200. I just feel that its hard to justify that price difference.

You really dont understand, you get what you pay for.
Lenses is the expensive part that sticks at the end of your camera.
Buy a good lens and it will serve you for many years, buy a cheap crappy one and in few months you will kick yourself you bought it.
There is a big differences between lenses and the more you develop your knowladge the better you learn to different between good and bad.

If you feel you dont have the knowladge yet then maybe you should sit back use your current equipment, learn more and then you will have a better understanding what you want, what you can get and what is you really need then go and get your new lens.

 

[hamlet]

You're right, i don't understand. I just want to photograph landscapes and i don't know if my 18-55 is sufficient, because i have no other metric to compare it with. Its like having vanilla ice in your scoop and you want to decide on whether to get strawberry or chocolate next when you don't even know how those two flavors taste like.

 

[480sparky]

........Buy a good lens and it will serve you for many years,.......

Bingo! Good glass is 'timeless'.

Think of lenses like this: You buy a tripod based solely on price (Lets say $50). You quickly realize that it's a cheap, flimsy piece of crap. So you decide to buy a $100 tripod. It does OK, until you get longer tele lenses, then find even it is not doing the job. So you pony up and spend $350 on a top-notch 'pod. Now, in the long run, you've really spent $500 on a $350 tripod.

Do you want to do the same thing with lenses?

 

[goodguy]

........Buy a good lens and it will serve you for many years,.......

Bingo! Good glass is 'timeless'.

Think of lenses like this: You buy a tripod based solely on price (Lets say $50). You quickly realize that it's a cheap, flimsy piece of crap. So you decide to buy a $100 tripod. It does OK, until you get longer tele lenses, then find even it is not doing the job. So you pony up and spend $350 on a top-notch 'pod. Now, in the long run, you've really spent $500 on a $350 tripod.

Do you want to do the same thing with lenses?

Exactly my point.

Let me share with you a little story, I bought in the Toronto camera Show an old tele lens Nikon 70-210mm.
It was an AF lens and my (back then) camera the D7000 had the AF motor.
In the begining I was super happy with it, on 70mm the pictures it produced were sharp but in time when I took more pictures in full zoom I just saw the pictures came out shoft.
There was nothing wrong with the lens, it simply is not a good quality lens (and thats why it only cost me 80$ used), I sold it lost few bucks and then got my 70-300mm VR, now I am happy, what a wolrd of difference!!! and it only cost me 280$ for this lens.

In the long run you will be happy you got this lens.

BTW the 70-300mm VR is not top notch Nikon lens, there are so many other lenses like the 70-200mm 2.8 which cost around 2000$, now thats a price I must admit scares me but maybe in the future I will get it.