Question about Nikon 55-200mm and Nikon 70-300mm lens

[Jarrod1986]

Ok, so I recently bought a Nikon D3000 as my first D-SLR camera and I love it. I bought it with the lens kit which included the Nikon 18-55mm VR and the Nikon 55-200mm VR. I want to shoot mainly Wild life/Nature photography and also Sunsets. So heres my question. I have the 55-200mm VR lens, but should I go out and buy the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. Also if I do buy the 70-300 should I keep my 55-200mm lens or sell it to help pay for my new lens?

Thank you very much to everyone in advance for their help

 

[yyD70S]

I won't attempt to answer your question directly but here goes:

I have both lenses some time back but not at the same time... the 200mm when I had my DX while the 300mm was used on both DX & FX.

Based on memories, IQ for both were above average. More than suffice.
Built as well as VR for the longer focal length was better.
AF speed to me about the same for both.

Main determinant factor for you would be if you need the longer focal length.

For general usage, your current gear suffice. For "sports" and low-light, both are not ideal.

Ok, so I recently bought a Nikon D3000 as my first D-SLR camera and I love it. I bought it with the lens kit which included the Nikon 18-55mm VR and the Nikon 55-200mm VR. I want to shoot mainly Wild life/Nature photography and also Sunsets. So heres my question. I have the 55-200mm VR lens, but should I go out and buy the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. Also if I do buy the 70-300 should I keep my 55-200mm lens or sell it to help pay for my new lens?

Thank you very much to everyone in advance for their help

 

[zac08]

The 55-200 was designed for the DX camera in mind as it would translate to approximately 70-300mm in the 35mm format. The 70-300 was a improvement of the older lens which was used in the film days and would give you an even longer reach in the DX format at about 105-450mm in the 35mm format.

So if you need the extra reach, go ahead.

 

[gibss]

The difference isn't HUGE like 200mm vs 400mm, and you get roughly around the same performance, since both are slow tele zooms. I would rather you go 80-200 f2.8 or even better, the jugular - 70-200 f2.8; or just save up. I don't see a huge incentive for you to upgrade to 70-300VR, for that matter. At most, just crop your 200mm shot to get the more closed up composition haha

If you are going into FX, however, then 70-300mm would cover the full frame, and not the 55-200.

Regards,
gibss

 

[Blur Shadow]

I think that the upgrade is of little significance, and other than the increased reach on the telephoto end, you will not notice any significant improvement in IQ. Rather, I think you are better off saving for a 300mm f/4 or f/2.8 or better lens.

 

[TheChef]

Since you shoot wildlife, save for the 80-400mm VR. If you are loaded, get the 300mm or better still, a 400mm prime lens.

 

[kkvolution]

I have a 70-300mm on my D3K, though at 450mm after the 1.5x on DX, the reach to me is still not enough everytime. Cos the more zoom I have, the more I hungry for more zoom.

 

[roaringflamer]

sorry to hijack thread! but im also interested to know the above as well haha cause i got a d90 with 18-105 kit and some primes and looking to get a telephoto to compliment!

 

[Reportage]

sorry to hijack thread! but im also interested to know the above as well haha cause i got a d90 with 18-105 kit and some primes and looking to get a telephoto to compliment!

dont worry about that. 18-105 is a very good range for city photography not to mention its VR.

i recommend save up and go for a 70-200mm F2.8 to complement the 18-105mm.

 

[roaringflamer]

haha yeah but i think the 70-200 way out of my budget haha >.< looking for a slower tele photo first to start off. hence 55-200 better or just go straight for 70-300?