bigger aperture gain longer shutter speed? What the......

last time i went Paris, snap for 3 days about 800+ pics on a single charge
70-300G VR got SWM, 70-300G non-VR is d 1 without motor

55-300 is better than 55-200 in almost everythg, except AF speed slower than 55-200 in low light
false statement
depending on which item, some r more expensive than other brands
Example, Canon 28-300L costs abt rm10k, but Nikon 28-300 costs 3.3k
Nikon 50 1.8 costs rm370-400+, but Canon 50 1.8 costs rm300
Nikon top flash model SB900 rm1600+, Canon top flash model 58EXII rm1700+, Sony top flash model around rm1500
Sony have Carl Zeiss lenses which some cost more than Nikon or Canon equivalent lenses

last time i went Paris, snap for 3 days about 800+ pics on a single charge
70-300G VR got SWM, 70-300G non-VR is d 1 without motor

55-300 is better than 55-200 in almost everythg, except AF speed slower than 55-200 in low light
false statement
depending on which item, some r more expensive than other brands
Example, Canon 28-300L costs abt rm10k, but Nikon 28-300 costs 3.3k
Nikon 50 1.8 costs rm370-400+, but Canon 50 1.8 costs rm300
Nikon top flash model SB900 rm1600+, Canon top flash model 58EXII rm1700+, Sony top flash model around rm1500
Sony have Carl Zeiss lenses which some cost more than Nikon or Canon equivalent lenses

The 35 1.8G is only bout rm780
the 17-55 cost a bomb that's why might as well buy the 24-70 and upgrade the body.

explain more pls

Quality leh?

Some reviews beg to difer on the 55-200 vs 55-300 from what i read elsewhere. not to sure.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-300mm.htm#rex

Plss read what i mean

i mean is it because it make it to f2.8 so we  can boost up abit shutter speed , i dont mean wide aperture can gain longer shutter speed , sweat ,

lol u guy better ignore me , my english suck i dont know how to explain what i mean , i think maumau know i mean.

I even will go for 24-70 at any time as I find 17-55 range is not sufficient for me.

Some reviews beg to difer on the 55-200 vs 55-300 from what i read elsewhere. not to sure.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-300mm.htm#rex

the f2.8 generally help you to shoot in low light situation, yes if you mean boost as in reducing the shutter speed.
But why not get the 24-70 and so that next time you can use it on a FX body?
It's not worth the money IMO to spend so much on a DX lens.
there's the siggy 17-50 which is cheaper if you're looking for f2.8.

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:25 pm

Me too, but may be he wants to cover the wide ends too. I would never spend so much on DX.
Get the 24-70 and eat bread everyday to save for a FX body. 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:26 pm

reviews from ken rockwell?
take it with a pinch of salt.

the f2.8 generally help you to shoot in low light situation, yes if you mean boost as in reducing the shutter speed.
But why not get the 24-70 and so that next time you can use it on a FX body?
It's not worth the money IMO to spend so much on a DX lens.
there's the siggy 17-50 which is cheaper if you're looking for f2.8.

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:25 pm

Me too, but may be he wants to cover the wide ends too. I would never spend so much on DX.
Get the 24-70 and eat bread everyday to save for a FX body. 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:26 pm

reviews from ken rockwell?
take it with a pinch of salt.

I will get 24-70mm when i got FX body but not now

ya i was thinking tamron , sigma , and nikon . wonder which is suit for DX

i need faster focus

24-70 on DX body also geng lar..
no need FX if you go FX it will be almost like 17-55 perspective.
all my lenses are DX lenses 

f2.8 doesn't mean anything about focusing speed.
if you mean you want a 17-50/55 f2.8 with faster focus I think the siggy & nikon is faster than tamron.
and all three 17-50/55 is for DX.
if you got the money and you don't mind it's a DX lens then just go with the nikon. Siggy and tamron all have quality issue especially after 1 or 2 years.

24-70 on DX body also geng lar..
no need FX if you go FX it will be almost like 17-55 perspective.
all my lenses are DX lenses 

Oh no guys, don't look down on 55-200mm, it's a sharp lens for portrait. Ask ask General_Nic 

Good question, I also wanna ask, why 24-70mm f/2.8 also no VR 1... Anyhow, do consider to get 24-70, it's a FX lens with Nano coating! Whereas 17-55 is a DX lens without Nano coating. I'm just comparing the worthness in terms of price.    (Jeez, I'm repeating these many times already  )

which part? lol
he's comparing 55-200 & 55-300 with 70-300 VR?
its like heaven n earth 

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:26 pm

reviews from ken rockwell?
take it with a pinch of salt.

This one confirmed kena my poison the other day already...

Not about the problem geng or not geng ,

is about the coverage you want and the aperture , fast len

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:33 pm
Ic ... thanks you

24 would become 36 on DX which is very tight for landscape.
it will become like 17-55 perspective but with the bigger sensor you get a lot MORE!!!

hi guys,i intend to get a nikon d7000 this weekend at lowyat. any idea what's the advantage apart of its high ISO? i heard many reviews that the nikon's parts are very expensive rather than others like sony and canon.cos i am currently using sony a33.

For the price, it's actually good, it's light, easy for travel and carry around, sharp too. The main drawback is it's focusing speed, but it depends what you use it for and you can learn to compensate the focusing speed by pre-focusing to shorten the focus time.

The 55-300 VR would be better with metal mount + 9 rounded aperture blades; This one have people selling sligthly below RM1K.

Anyhow, it depends what you use for and your requirements. This is s DX lens, so if you plan to upgrade to FX, you might want to consider the 70-300 VR. But if you just want a lens that is CHEAP, light, easy to carry around, the 55-200 or 55-300 would probably make do. The best is to test/try it out yourself the lens and decide.

Really? I even saw people using 35mm 1.8 on their D3s. yeah 35mm 1.8 is a DX lens.

This one confirmed kena my poison the other day already...

no, its 55-200 vs 55-300, he seem to have concluded that 55-300 is not far superior to 55-200. of coz he said 70-300 is far superior la, comparin diff league ma!

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:35 pm

oh, why is that may i know?

anyone from malacca here?
thinking of going down jonker street for a day or 2.