which lens would be better recommended.

[seanlim]

AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX ED - $300 (TK, Dec05 - mcn) or AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G - $250 (MS, Sept05 - filofari)

both lens costs about the same but would like to enquire which is better recommended be it in quality,speed,range etc.do add any HELPFUL comments...thanks

[Reno]

both lens are slow, 55-200 is smaller but shorter range compared to 70-300 which is much bigger in size and longer range. Image quality wise... sorry cannot help out...

[kcuf2]

Brother, go get the AF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G - $250 la..
i just bought it ydae at cathay photo at $250, but i think u better call b4 u go down, becos ydae when i buy, thats the last they got..

i played around with it ydae, i would say, the image quality turns out quite ok..but be SURE to use a tripod...

somemore at $250, u get a 300mm lens, and its a nikkor..but its true that its a slow lens, but nvm la...budget wise, its a good buy

And for AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX ED, isnt this the lens that is on promotion at $199??

[yyD70S]

Am not sure about whether it's worth it to pay S$300-00 for the Nikkor 55-200mm DX because I managed to get it for much less from somebody who sold it off the D50 bundle (S$199+).

It's slow... but equally so are the Nikkor 70-300mm G and the Sigma equivalent.

But the Nikkor 55-200mm DX is a sharper lens and has better contrast. I have compared it to the other two (on loan from friends).

The other two reaches further and you can decide if you need it.

[espn]

Forget both, go for 70-200VR

[alechim]

you wouldnt wanna waste $200++ on those lens. not that I am bias, I rather you buy a gd lens 1 time rather than buy sell buy sell. In the end you waste more $$

alternatively you can buy the 80-200ED, if yuu want longer reach, get a TC

[espn]

Yup... agreed.

[alechim]

Originally Posted by espn Yup... agreed.

The king agreeded with me!!!!

jokes aside, I ever wanna get the 70-200 VR but I hardly shoot indoor so eventually I got myself a AFS80-200 with TC on the way
Man I am sure glad I did not settle on the sigma 70-200 lor...

[espn]

Aiyah... once you've gone that route, it's no turning back liao

[alechim]

Originally Posted by espn Aiyah... once you've gone that route, it's no turning back liao

you should put it once you are on the right track, you will not look back and query yourself "how come I never buy that gd lens in the first place"

[espn]

Originally Posted by alechim you should put it once you are on the right track, you will not look back and query yourself "how come I never buy that gd lens in the first place"

That's what I'm trying to tell most, people just think that I'm joking because the glasses are too expensive...

[roti_prata]

how come there's no [educational price] for cameras and were there ever rebates in sg?

[net-g]

Rather than buying a big, heavy and expensive lens which don't get brought out often, isn't one which is smaller, lighter and cheaper more worth it? This is from the pov of a newbie and not a professional shooter.

[espn]

Originally Posted by net-g Rather than buying a big, heavy and expensive lens which don't get brought out often, isn't one which is smaller, lighter and cheaper more worth it? This is from the pov of a newbie and not a professional shooter.

If you bought the glass, surely you HAVE a use for it and surely you will bring it out? Ask those with 500 f/4, 600 f/4, sure it's heavy, but they have a use for it and will bring it out.

Don't forget, weight of the equipment matters in a lot of situations, like hand-held+balancing CG with the body, tripod mount, etc.

Light is light, but can it be easily handheld without shaking if mounted to D2X? How about a 70-200VR mounted to D2X, would the CG be better for handheld?

Depends really on how you see it. To me, it must have a proper weight so that it's easy to hold/use. Too light, no good, too heavy no good, right balance is a must.

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by espn Depends really on how you see it. To me, it must have a proper weight so that it's easy to hold/use. Too light, no good, too heavy no good, right balance is a must.

I agree with you there, but the 70-200 is a heavy lens, very good but heavy! Must be prepared to get a sturdy tripod and monopod with that one, other than that i agree with espn's theory of BBB, makes sense to me!

Out of those two, i have the 70-300, its very very slow!!! but offers better focal range then the 55-200, the extra 100mm is nice to have. Its not super sharp, but its pretty good, contrast and colourwise is good, id say just an average lens. But may be worth tring to get second hand.

[eawtan]

Originally Posted by wildstallion I agree with you there, but the 70-200 is a heavy lens, very good but heavy! Must be prepared to get a sturdy tripod and monopod with that one, other than that i agree with espn's theory of BBB, makes sense to me!

I personally don't find the 70-200 heavy, it can be used hand-held easily...

[roti_prata]

Originally Posted by wildstallion I agree with you there, but the 70-200 is a heavy lens, very good but heavy! Must be prepared to get a sturdy tripod and monopod with that one

yea right this is the supreme vr lens and shd be handheld all the time wats the use of vr if ur going to mount it? unless im shooting at night i wont bring my tripod

[espn]

Originally Posted by eawtan I personally don't find the 70-200 heavy, it can be used hand-held easily...

Bingo... try a 70-300 or sort for that matter and you'll see why the 70-200VR excels even though it's weight and it's seriously not heavy!

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by roti_prata yea right this is the supreme vr lens and shd be handheld all the time wats the use of vr if ur going to mount it? unless im shooting at night i wont bring my tripod

My knowledge is that most people use this lens in low light conditions hence the VR and 2.8, thats why suggested use of monopod or tripod, can be handheld quite easily, didnt say shouldnt!

[alechim]

Originally Posted by wildstallion My knowledge is that most people use this lens in low light conditions hence the VR and 2.8, thats why suggested use of monopod or tripod, can be handheld quite easily, didnt say shouldnt!

there are time where you do not need to use a monopod or tripod...
I myself have the AFS80-200 ( the much heavier compare to the 70-200VR and the 80-200ED), I can handheld and shoot sharp pictures indoor...

I am not encouraging you to buy expensive lens nor am I trying to put fore that expensive lens are gd. It is proven these lens are superb!

dont talk about pro or non pro usage ( all the PRO talks here are just jokes). I am not a pro and nor the others. I myself came a long way from deciding cheap alternatives but after trying and buying the "real" thing, I have no regrets!