nikon 55-200 versus 70-300 vr lens Is the price difference justified between these 2 lens?
1790366
I have the 55 200 vr and the 70 300 vr. I like them both but if I had to get rid of one it would be the 55 200. There is no comparison in the build quality,, you get what you pay for. The 70 300 is heavy but I'm not even close to a pro photog and don't wag one around for long periods of time.
1790367
Absolutely. The larger one is heavy but not too. Big $$$ difference. The VR works well. Great lens for most applications..
1790368
I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable... » Read More I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. « Show Less
1790369
If I were to purchase the D3000, which I be okay with the lense that it comes with? Or should I buy the 55-200 right out of the gate?
1790370
I owned the 70-300VR for a year and sold it. I bought the 55-200VR and still have it after a year.For me, an amateur photographer of general life pictures, I did not like the size and weight of the 70-300. I ended up not using it much and therefore decided to sell it. However, the pictures were beautiful. In it's favor are the bokeh and contrast. Otherwise, I find the little brother 55-200 more suitable for me hands down. I prefer the range, light weight, low price, and overall picture quality was more than good enough. If I were to do primarily bugs, birds type, then the 70-300 would be more suited. I owned the 70-300VR for a year and sold it. I bought the 55-200VR and still have it after a year.For me, an amateur photographer of general life pictures, I did not like the size and weight of the 70-300. I ended up not using it much and therefore decided to sell it. However, the pictures were beautiful. In it's favor are the bokeh and contrast. Otherwise, I find the little brother 55-200 more suitable for me hands down. I prefer the range, light weight, low price, and overall picture quality was more than good enough. If I were to do primarily bugs, birds type, then the 70-300... » Read More I owned the 70-300VR for a year and sold it. I bought the 55-200VR and still have it after a year.For me, an amateur photographer of general life pictures, I did not like the size and weight of the 70-300. I ended up not using it much and therefore decided to sell it. However, the pictures were beautiful. In it's favor are the bokeh and contrast. Otherwise, I find the little brother 55-200 more suitable for me hands down. I prefer the range, light weight, low price, and overall picture quality was more than good enough. If I were to do primarily bugs, birds type, then the 70-300 would be more suited. « Show Less
1790371
Yes, the two lenses are worlds apart. The 70-300 is a top quality 'prosumer' lens, intended for advanced amateurs and pros on a budget; worth every penny! The 55-200 is an affordable, 'entry level' lens and an excellent value.
1790372
A lot depends on what you like to shoot. The 300 is far more useful for wildlife or sports and it was worth it for me. Read my review.
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less
2096569
the only differences between the two lenses are: 1) focal length and 2) price. The 18-300 is approx. $150 more than the 18-200. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, and can afford the higher price, I would definitely go with the 18-300 for the longer reach. However, I personally own the 18-200 and love it for 98% of the shooting I do
1464250
24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor, 28-300mm VR F3.5-5.6 Nikkor, 70-200mm VRII F/2.8, perhaps the 24-24mm F/2.8 if you're after a bit wider.
1516443
Short answer: "Yes!" I sold my 55-250 MM kit lens and bought the 70-300MM for precisely the reason you mention: to get better, closer bird images...in flight and on the feeder. I haven't been disappointed. This is a "sharper" lens than the 55-250 and the extra zoom range really comes in handy. Be aware, though, that the 70-300 MM is both larger and heavier than the other lens. At maximum zoom it is up to 8-1/2" long.
369538
One new lens to consider - the new 55-200 VR lens, as an addition to the kit 18-55 lens. The Vibration Reduction is an incredible asset. The lens is quite inexpensive as well.
568548
200 isn't a lot more reach, but it was enough to make the decision for me. If you're concerned about weight and bulk, I'd say stick to the 45-150. Someday you can get the 100-300mm for serious reach. I think both lenses are good, so the decision boils down to personal preference.
963337
Outperforms the 70-300 VR in that is can zoom back to 28mm. That is why it is twice the price. It does not produce better images between 70 and 300mm. I would chose the 70-300 for the longest shots, and the 28-300 for shorter. Both lenses are as professional as the person using them, do not be impressed by reviewers waving wads of bills at you, because like a Violin, a Camera/lens is only as good as the user!
2096572
The 18-200 has better specs across all ranges (read Thom Hogan) A 300 mm lense can be very handy, but check the weight of each lense.
548067
Thank you for contacting us. The 18-55mm lens will have "VR" or vibration reduction but the 55-200mm lens does not have this feature.
448718
I've owned both lenses, and in my opinion for use with FX cameras the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens is a better lens than the old 24-120mm f/3/5-5.6G. The 24-85G is sharper, especially at the edges; it's lighter; and its VR function works better. Of course, you give up the extra range, but I've found that 85mm is adequate for most general photography.
2212012
Only lens w/ "VR" are Auto Focus compatible. The 18-55mm AF-S VR is auto focus, the 70-300m Zoom is NOT. you need to contact the store for other options. They have 2 lens available for an additional charge. I went w/ Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 55-300m. Its a great lens for a great price. I recommend it.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
2059522
With the VR, it performs fairly well. It is 1/2 stop slower than the older 18-300, but it's lighter and has better optical characteristics. The 1/2 step is not really an issue. Just remember that it does stop down to f6.3 at full telephoto. If you use Auto ISO, this could help compensate. If you have realistic expectations about what the lens can do, it will serve you well.
873522
I am shooting on a Nikon 3200. I went with the 55-300 for its flexibility. It gives great depth of fields and allows me take great pics no matter what. Being in an austere environment this lens works great for long range and close range photograph. The longer 400mm lens has some problems and the 300mm gives better f-stop in my opinion. I found for cost and range of meters to be perfect. Clear shots, great DOF and quickness is great. I shot 90% free hand and have no vibration problems/blurry in my photos thanks to the VR.
1418334
i would say the major difference in price is because of the build quality..i have used this dslr kit and i was really happy with everything..and the canon 70-200 should fitas you have a lot of space to move your camera body back and forth.
137014
There is one available from OneCall for $1,899.00, but I don't think I can trust it, and extra $200 isn't really worth the risk of getting a lens that may not have Nikon's warranty on it. Sigh... should I just go get the 105mm macro VR or the 70-200mm VR II?