Nikon 70-300 or 55-200

[Gebadire]

Afternoon all,

I've been looking at getting a new lens for my D60 to compliment my 18-55 kit lens. The two that have been of particular interest are the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED and the Nikon 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX.

I don't have a particular use for it, just general photography as I am still learning the basics. Landscapes will probably be the most common.

I would just like to know which of the two is the best to go with. Is it worth paying nearly twice as much for the 70-300? Is the difference between 200-300mm great?

Apologies, I'm still learning at the mo!

Cheers,
Paul :)

[puddleduck]

I've shot landscapes with both the 55-200 VR and the 70-300 VR



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/2442641683_c062a0f010_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2140/2440653735_5a30c5c2af_o.jpg

55-200 VR


http://www.odysseus-software.co.uk/public_html/colorado/content/bin/images/large/DSC_4358.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2919582832_35d8d1f955_o.jpg

70-300 VR





For landscapes I'd probably favour the 55-200 VR, as its nice and small. The 70-300 VR doesn't have a tripod collar, and due to the weight isn't ideal for this.

[BGilbert]

I have the 70 - 300mm lens and also have the 18 - 55mm, both good lenses, but if you want to shoot scenic, I would buy the 18 - 200mm VR, as this lense will stay on you camera all the time, great lense, small and compact, and very good glass for the price.

[Gebadire]

Ok thanks for the help. I think I'll plump for the 200mm one!

[Joe T]

In a choice of the 55-200 or 70-300 VR, defo go for the 70-300VR. It's a better lens and the length will come in useful.

[Flash In The Pan]

Both are cracking lenses, my only gripe would be the 70-300 makes the D60 a bit nose heavy. For sheer value for money I'd plump for the 55-200 vr