[tontoshorse]

getting a bit fractious now!

I'm looking at the much acclaimed (and discussed) sigma 70-300 vpo, but have also "discovered" the Nikon 55-200 AFS ED. This it would seem would neatly butt up against my kit lens, however not too sure if it has macro capability.

Anyone have an opinion one v the other.

Cheers

[Steve N]

Worth reading Thom Hogans review on the Nikon here:
http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm
He considers it one of the poorer Nikon lenses.

[tontoshorse]

Thanks for the link, he writes strange reviews and almost contradictary.
He doesn't much care for the 18-55 kit lens either, but I find it quite good.

I wonder what he is thinking by writing this on the 55-200.

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]The 80-300mm for the digital world. Yes, the low-cost telephoto zoom is back in full force. If that's what you want with your D50, this is a lens you should consider. Just don't expect 70-200mm VR performance. [/FONT]

And the price difference is........?

cheers

[PaulBoy]

Hi - How much more reach do you want should be one of the main things to consider? I had three lenses which only went to 200mm including a top johnny banana f2.8 Nikon - For me 200mm wasn't far enough so after much d!cking around I am back with a 70-300mm - the Nikon VR one
I have just done some test shots [HERE] with it which I am happy with & that's the main thing - If you don't feel you'll need the 200-300mm range then stick with the 55-200mm [it's NOT a Macro lens fyi]
HTH ... Paul

btw Thom Hogan's review might not be too far from the mark - here's what Ken Rockwell says ...

... It's slow.
It's only half an AF-S lens. Unlike the real $1,700 AF-S lenses like the 70-200 VR which have big AF-S motors wrapped around the optics directly driving the focus and allowing instant manual focus override, this cheepie has a dinky motor driving the lens through a shaft and gears exactly as if Nikon skipped it and just used the AF motor already built into the camera.
... For half the price you can get the 70 -300 G, which is more lens. I'd probably get the 70 - 300 G instead, since I want the longer zoom range although the 70 - 300 gets soft at 300 mm

[tontoshorse]

Originally Posted by PaulBoy

Hi - How much more reach do you want should be one of the main things to consider? I had three lenses which only went to 200mm including a top johnny banana f2.8 Nikon - For me 200mm wasn't far enough so after much d!cking around I am back with a 70-300mm - the Nikon VR one

Thats the million dollar question. I aint been passed 55mm so don't really know!

Originally Posted by PaulBoy

I have just done some test shots [HERE] with it which I am happy with & that's the main thing - If you don't feel you'll need the 200-300mm range then stick with the 55-200mm [it's NOT a Macro lens fyi]
HTH ... Paul

btw Thom Hogan's review might not be too far from the mark - here's what Ken Rockwell says ...

I feel I'm heading towards the VR simply because its better, but not because its suitable.
I've tried to set a £120 limit (the 55-200 is £99@Dixons) but I can see the pull of the VR....help!!!!

[mr:w]

I got my D50 with 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses, have since changed them to 18-70 f/3.5 and 70-300VR cos the 55-200 didn't give me the extra length / reach I wanted (and I couldn't turn down the offer I got on the 18-70 )

I'm stoked with both lenses now, particularly the 70-300VR I've not used the Sigma so can't comment but for build and picture quality the 70-300VR is head and shoulders above the kit 55-200 lens.

Also worth bearing in mind the Nikon doesn't have Macro function, but guess it all boils down to what you're going to be shooting and what you want from your lens.

[mr:w]

Originally Posted by tontoshorse

I've tried to set a £120 limit (the 55-200 is £99@Dixons) but I can see the pull of the VR....help!!!!

And don't forget, those nice people at warehouseexpress do BNPL for 10 months with 10% deposit, and will price match most places. Got my 70-300VR for £330 delivered.

If you upgrade the body later, you've then got some class glass to put straight on.

[tontoshorse]

Originally Posted by mr:w

And don't forget, those nice people at warehouseexpress do BNPL for 10 months with 10% deposit, and will price match most places. Got my 70-300VR for £330 delivered.

If you upgrade the body later, you've then got some class glass to put straight on.

ahh, yes a clever sales ploy

[Steve N]

Originally Posted by PaulBoy

.....For me 200mm wasn't far enough so after much d!cking around I am back with a 70-300mm - the Nikon VR one

I found the same. I've recently got the TC-14 to bump up the range to around 300mm but am still underwhelmed.
My 5700 seems to give greater magnification.
The quality is fine but I want a longer reach.
I'd like to find something around 500mm of decent quality that won't mean me having to re-mortgage the house.
Anyone any recommendations
By the way - nice pictures Paul and an impressive way of showing them.

[PaulBoy]

I've tried to set a £120 limit (the 55-200 is £99@Dixons) but I can see the pull of the VR....help!!!!

TontosH - Resistance is futile (in my experience)

Originally Posted by Steve N

I found the same. I've recently got the TC-14 to bump up the range to around 300mm but am still underwhelmed.
My 5700 seems to give greater magnification.
The quality is fine but I want a longer reach.
I'd like to find something around 500mm of decent quality that won't mean me having to re-mortgage the house.
Anyone any recommendations
By the way - nice pictures Paul and an impressive way of showing them.

Steve - Thanks for the kind comments - Its not the mortgage that worries me its the sheer size of the bigger quality lenses (unless you are built like Arnold What-his-negger or are happy humping a huge tripod around) - For me that is overkill at the zoo or wandering around the local lakeside - the 70-300mm has enough quality for me, even with the 1.4TC on, but does need plenty of light or the ISO starts to soar skywards
Sigma make the Bigma which goes to 500mm & it gets good press on the quality side (not sure how "portable" it is?)
Good luck in your search ... Paul

[tontoshorse]

Originally Posted by PaulBoy

I have just done some test shots [HERE] with it which I am happy with & that's the main thing -HTH ... Paul

Were they taken without a tripod then? What sort of distance?

cheers

[PaulBoy]

Originally Posted by tontoshorse

Were they taken without a tripod then? What sort of distance?

cheers

t-horse ... No tripod - handheld - there's a grebe shot which is as the pic was taken (theres a chain link fence behind the grebe?) - that was about 20-25 feet away & the next pic is the same shot cropped to show PQ
The latest ones (only taken this afternoon!) vary in distance - the mallard was 10feet away whereas the others were up to 25feet again
The VR gives you 3-4stops advantage imo - people with steady hands reckon they can get sharp pics at 1/10th (for me its more like 1/60th) and I prefer to stay nearer 1/250th
If you were local I'd let you have a play but iirc your in Newcastle (?) Maybe someone else nearby will offer you a try out (?)
Cheers ... Paul

[tontoshorse]

Thanks for the offer Paul, though your memory is correct!

Perhaps I could persuade Jessops.