Nikon 55-200mm vr or 70-300mm vr?

I've used both, the 70-300 VR is better built, but it's also bigger and heavier and nearly three times the price of the 55-200 VR. Both lenses are excellent value, if bought at the right price.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I've used both, the 70-300 VR is better built, but it's also bigger and heavier and nearly three times the price of the 55-200 VR. Both lenses are excellent value, if bought at the right price.
Click to expand...

How is the 70-300 VR nearly 3x the price?
 
Both are excellent.

The 70-300 is a full frame lens, with faster AF and better VR than the 55-200.

The 55-200 DX is tiny, very sharp, but with less effective VR and slower pseudo-AF-S. It actually projects a bit more than a DX frame on the long end for FF too :)

The 55-200 VR is superb value for its optical performance which is WAY better than you'd think for the price.
 
Go for the 55-200mm VR, then when you decide you want something f/2.8 after having used some gits 80-200mm f/2.8 then you wont be losing so much money.
 
I had the 55-200mm VR and then changed to the 70-300mm VR.

Yes, there is an improvement in build quality (weight!), optics and the increased range is nice to have. Tbh the 55-200 probably spoiled me a bit in punching above its weight. :)

Either would be a sound choice.
 
Yes, about 2x at the moment.

The "problem" is the 55-200 VR is VERY good, and the 70-300 VR isn't two times better in optical terms, although thats very good you are paying for the better build, and faster AF (with FTMF) and better VR.

In this instance, I'd disregard the price and just get the focal length you most need.
 
I don't think I've used either on a D200 (possibly the 70-200 VR can't remember) but both are fine. On a semi-Pro body I'd probably lean more towards the 70-300 VR.
 
I have the 70-300VR on my D40 and the quality is superb from 80-280mm, at 70 and 300mm it's still good.
 
I have both these lenses. I think they are very different lenses in terms of handling so it's also a case of what do you want to do with it. The 70-300 is big and heavy and that is why I bought the 55-200. It is more compact and a lot lighter. If I was going on my hols with a weight restricted cut down kit to have the 55/200 is better than no telephoto because the 70/300 would be at home. Optically they both look good to me but I use a D70s so a D200 would be more unforegiving.
 
I had - then sold the 55/200. It occurred to me that the 18-200 would be far better at the sort of pictures I take - it would also decrease my lens count by the 18-135. In the end I kept the 18-135 and got the 70-300 and I like the overlap.

I like the portraits with the 70-300.

Chris
 
I am quite encouraged by this thread, I have just had the 55-200mm VR bought me for Christmas, just in time for my holiday :)

Quite excited about using it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top