nikon 70-300 vr. vs 55-200
Oct 3, 2014 19:05:47 #
I have the d3200 with 18-55 mm vr and 55-200 vr kit lenses. I am thinking of getting the 70-300 vr. Would I see that much of a difference with 100mm more reach and better IQ. Thanks for any advice
Oct 3, 2014 19:12:14 #
tom1921 wrote:
I have the d3200 with 18-55 mm vr and 55-200 vr kit lenses. I am thinking of getting the 70-300 vr. Would I see that much of a difference with 100mm more reach and better IQ. Thanks for any advice
The Nikon 70-300mm VR is a full frame lens, your 55-200mm is a DX kit lens. There is a large increase in optical quality going to the FX lens. The 70-300mm gets a little soft at the edges, but that would not be an issue with your D3200 as the crop sensor does not see the edges anyway and only utilizes the center 2/3 of the FX lens' glass. So yes, you would definitely see an increase in image quality going to that lens over your kit lens.
Oct 3, 2014 19:17:06 #
Oct 3, 2014 20:18:15 #
The 100mm often makes a difference. Both have good image quality. I would decide based on the focal length not on the image quality.
If the 70-300 VR is a little more than you want to spend, consider a used or refurbished one. You should also consider the Nikon 55-300 VR. It's smaller, lighter, and less expensive. Image quality is similar, but the 70-300 VR focuses a little faster and is a little more ruggedly built. It's also available used or refurbished.
Check B&H, Adorama, and keh.com for used and refurbished lenses.
If the 70-300 VR is a little more than you want to spend, consider a used or refurbished one. You should also consider the Nikon 55-300 VR. It's smaller, lighter, and less expensive. Image quality is similar, but the 70-300 VR focuses a little faster and is a little more ruggedly built. It's also available used or refurbished.
Check B&H, Adorama, and keh.com for used and refurbished lenses.
Oct 4, 2014 06:01:07 #
tommckibbin
Loc: Liverpool, England.
I had 18-55 and 55-200. Sold both and got 18-105 for walkabout town and 55-300 for wildlife. Well pleased.
Oct 4, 2014 06:31:40 #
tom1921 wrote:
I have the d3200 with 18-55 mm vr and 55-200 vr kit lenses. I am thinking of getting the 70-300 vr. Would I see that much of a difference with 100mm more reach and better IQ. Thanks for any advice
You would gain an additional 100mm reach and not much else. Attached is dxomark.com comparison.
Save your money and look for a better alternative.
Oct 4, 2014 10:42:40 #
tom1921 wrote:
I have the d3200 with 18-55 mm vr and 55-200 vr kit lenses. I am thinking of getting the 70-300 vr. Would I see that much of a difference with 100mm more reach and better IQ. Thanks for any advice
Sell your kit lenses and get the new 18-300 VR 3.5-6.3.
Oct 4, 2014 15:54:28 #
Oct 4, 2014 17:02:36 #
I have the D3300 and it came with the same lens offerings.
The first lens I got was a Tamron 150-600mm. And not am I disappointed, I love that big Tam.
So that got me the reach I wanted. I figured why go part way, go all the way. I was thinking to keep my distance and draw the shot into the camera. Which it does.
Then Regis shown how you can also use the cannon for closer work as well. (Which also helped draw me into the macro world.)
I also wanted something to broaden my horizons. I saw where Nikon had refurbished 10-24mm wide angle lenses and got one of those. Wowzer wide!
Then I saw the Macro section here. Beware! I got terrible GAS over there. I had to get a bunch of stuff to be happy.
A four way cross slide, lens reversal ring, lens extenders, better lens extenders, a ring flash/light, and a Tamron Macro lens 180mm.
With a lens reversal ring you can take your two kit lenses and double there use into the macro world inexpensively. That is a relatively cheap trick.
But.... (There's always a but, isn't there...)
I can capture about everything I can see, and then some.
I don't plan to dump my kit lenses. I have the extenders and I can reverse them for additional macro use.
So from elephants and big birds, down to tiny spiders and ants, if I run out of things to take pictures of shoot me, I must have gone blind.
Right, wrong, or in between, You need glass. But how much you want it to overlap is up to you. I tried to keep my overlapping to a minimum.
10-24; 18-55; 55-200; 150-600; and the true macro 180.
Good luck with the other half. It's a vicious vortex. :twisted:
The first lens I got was a Tamron 150-600mm. And not am I disappointed, I love that big Tam.
So that got me the reach I wanted. I figured why go part way, go all the way. I was thinking to keep my distance and draw the shot into the camera. Which it does.
Then Regis shown how you can also use the cannon for closer work as well. (Which also helped draw me into the macro world.)
I also wanted something to broaden my horizons. I saw where Nikon had refurbished 10-24mm wide angle lenses and got one of those. Wowzer wide!
Then I saw the Macro section here. Beware! I got terrible GAS over there. I had to get a bunch of stuff to be happy.
A four way cross slide, lens reversal ring, lens extenders, better lens extenders, a ring flash/light, and a Tamron Macro lens 180mm.
With a lens reversal ring you can take your two kit lenses and double there use into the macro world inexpensively. That is a relatively cheap trick.
But.... (There's always a but, isn't there...)
I can capture about everything I can see, and then some.
I don't plan to dump my kit lenses. I have the extenders and I can reverse them for additional macro use.
So from elephants and big birds, down to tiny spiders and ants, if I run out of things to take pictures of shoot me, I must have gone blind.
Right, wrong, or in between, You need glass. But how much you want it to overlap is up to you. I tried to keep my overlapping to a minimum.
10-24; 18-55; 55-200; 150-600; and the true macro 180.
Good luck with the other half. It's a vicious vortex. :twisted:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.