Zoom lens: Hi Hoggers. I'm in the market for a tele zoom. I have a 7200 and plan on keeping it for awhile, Nikon 18-140. Nikon 60mm and Sigma 17-50. I'm looking to add a bigger zoom in...

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Hi Hoggers. I'm in the market for a tele zoom. I have a 7200 and plan on keeping it for awhile, Nikon 18-140. Nikon 60mm and Sigma 17-50. I'm looking to add a bigger zoom in the 55 or 70-300. I see Nikon has 5 lenses and my head hurts trying to figure which one to buy. I see the 70-300vr is $200 more than the 55-300vr. Is it really that much better or would I just be paying extra for the Fx that I'll use on the 7200 dx body. Thanks for any info

Quixdraw Loc: x

I have the D7200 and use it mostly with Nikon FX lenses. One lens I have had excellent results with on the D7200 is the older AF Nikkor 75-300 4.5 5.6. Here is one in excellent condition for very little money. Link https://usedphotopro.com/nikon-nikkor-af-75-300mm-f45-56-lens-75-30045-56-una-07-8580-3-221194-02e23de5

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I've used this lens for several years and love it, it's FF and sharp. Nikon AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens

Moondoggie Loc: Southern California

Hi Royce, I have a Nikon D5300 and a Nikon 18-140 also. I purchased a Tamron 18-400 and use it a lot. I had done a fair amount of research on this lens and it provides me with the range that suits my photo style and budget. I do like the extra distance while shooting animals. I believe I paid about $649. This is just my opinion. Good luck.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Moondoggie wrote:

Hi Royce, I have a Nikon D5300 and a Nikon 18-140 also. I purchased a Tamron 18-400 and use it a lot. I had done a fair amount of research on this lens and it provides me with the range that suits my photo style and budget. I do like the extra distance while shooting animals. I believe I paid about $649. This is just my opinion. Good luck.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Royce Nikon actually doesn't make any Professional DX Glass... While some may argue that the old 17-55mm f/2.8 DX is "Pro Glass" it's a dog, way too heavy and not competitive with current third party offerings.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D7100__865

My choice? The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO Lens for Nikon F
B&H has one in like new condition
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/802130696-USE/sigma_692_306_50_150mm_f_2_8_ex_dc.html

This is a DX lens that Nikon actually sued Sigma over because Sigma reverse engineered Nikon's VR system.
As a result of the suit Sigma settled out of court by discontinuing this epic Pro Lens.
This Sigma is as sharp is my AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IF ED VR II even wide open!

Below is an example of what the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO Lens can to on a Nikon D7200
Best not to waste your time/money buying FX Nikon glass for your D7200... Unless you plan on migrating to FX..

Hope this helps Royce... or is at least food for thought.
All the best on your photographic journey.
.

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO on a Nikon D7200

(Download)

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

DxOMark rates both lenses about the same. They are nothing to write home about in terms of sharpness, but the 70-300 has a little less Chromatic Aberration compared to the 55-300. However, CA is easily fixed in Post. Either will serve you well.

I happen to have the 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED AF-S VR that I have used with my D7200 and D500 and it has performed well for me over the years and can recommend it. It is light and compact. The VR is a big plus at the longer focal lengths.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I believe OP wants to go well beyond the 140 he already has covered.

Using my backup 5500 the newer 70-300 VR AF-P Dx lense is significantly sharper (by a lot!) and faster than the older 55-300. It is also quite light and can be found reasonably on the used market. Please notice that the AF-P comes in both Dx (with and without VR) & Fx versions, with the Dx being much smaller and less expensive. VR is not much more and worth it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Royce Moss wrote:

Hi Hoggers. I'm in the market for a tele zoom. I have a 7200 and plan on keeping it for awhile, Nikon 18-140. Nikon 60mm and Sigma 17-50. I'm looking to add a bigger zoom in the 55 or 70-300. I see Nikon has 5 lenses and my head hurts trying to figure which one to buy. I see the 70-300vr is $200 more than the 55-300vr. Is it really that much better or would I just be paying extra for the Fx that I'll use on the 7200 dx body. Thanks for any info

The following 70-300 is my personal recommendation.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1349415-REG/nikon_20068_af_p_nikkor_70_300mm_f_4_5_5_6e.html

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

Royce Moss wrote:

Hi Hoggers. I'm in the market for a tele zoom. I have a 7200 and plan on keeping it for awhile, Nikon 18-140. Nikon 60mm and Sigma 17-50. I'm looking to add a bigger zoom in the 55 or 70-300. I see Nikon has 5 lenses and my head hurts trying to figure which one to buy. I see the 70-300vr is $200 more than the 55-300vr. Is it really that much better or would I just be paying extra for the Fx that I'll use on the 7200 dx body. Thanks for any info

In the Nikon DX models of the 70-300 the VR is only $50.00 difference. If you are not planning to go full frame in the future you can eliminate some of the 70-300 models. Sense you have the short in of the zooms you mentioned that my eliminate the 55-300. Hope this helps and good luck with your choice.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

That is a great pic, and says much for the lens - however, Royce has an 18-140 that he has not said he is unhappy with. I think he is looking for a 450 reach equiv lens. Budget wise, would he not be better looking at a 300 DX?
I have been exclusively a M4/3 photographer for more than a decade, so would welcome someone explaining the advantage of using FX lenses on a DX camera.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Royce Moss wrote:

Hi Hoggers. I'm in the market for a tele zoom. I have a 7200 and plan on keeping it for awhile, Nikon 18-140. Nikon 60mm and Sigma 17-50. I'm looking to add a bigger zoom in the 55 or 70-300. I see Nikon has 5 lenses and my head hurts trying to figure which one to buy. I see the 70-300vr is $200 more than the 55-300vr. Is it really that much better or would I just be paying extra for the Fx that I'll use on the 7200 dx body. Thanks for any info

Nikon makes a multitude of 70-300 zooms so it can be confusing - I have the 70-300 AF-P VR lens for my 7200 - been very happy with it - the Angry Photographer has recommended the older VR G version but I went with the newer AF-P version and have been very happy with it. Just make sure you have the latest firmware update to use AF-P lenses. Yes, this is the FX version since I have plans to add an FX body sometime down the road whether it's F or Z mount. As a side note I find myself shooting at 300 a lot so I am considering just getting a 300 prime lens too. A good alternative too is the Tamron 100-400 lens, with a bit of extra reach.

PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa

Moondoggie wrote:

Hi Royce, I have a Nikon D5300 and a Nikon 18-140 also. I purchased a Tamron 18-400 and use it a lot. I had done a fair amount of research on this lens and it provides me with the range that suits my photo style and budget. I do like the extra distance while shooting animals. I believe I paid about $649. This is just my opinion. Good luck.

I agree. I have a d7100 and this Tamron lens. I use it probably 90% of the time. I'm happy with this camera/lens combo.

uhaas2009

I have the 70-300 VR lens what I like its the glass, sharpness and it really good in focusing quick and good. The bad is my focus engine broke and yes I’m glad I got it fixed. I used this lens on my 7000 body (it’s not a strong body in focusing) and on my 810.

MT native Loc: Big Sky Country — Montana

I agree, don’t rule out Tamron’s 16-300 or the 18-400mm. For the money, they are great lenses.