Let me introduce myself first..
I'm 15 this year waiting for my D40 after my test..

I'm thinking of getting one of these zoom telephoto lens...which one is better..
70-300mmVR- +/-RM1700
55-200mmVR- +/-RM850

Which lens is better??I have been reading about comparison between these 2 lens, but it seems to be pretty same..

Does 100mm extra focal length makesa whole world of difference??

This post has been edited by Victor3010: Oct 27 2007, 07:53 PM

The 70-300 is a FX (full frame in Nikon's terminology) lens while the 55-200mm is a DX lens.

Due to the sweet spot effect. The 70-300 would be sharper than the 55-200. But only marginal & maybe visible if you do a huge print.

Personally would prefer the 70-300 cos of the longer reach.

usually 55-200mm is enough.

BUT, before i go further on my yappings. its largely based on what kind of photography are you in to. Like portraits? landscapes? Architecture?

most of the time would be portraits and architechtures (i like buildings)...landscape also gt but nt all the time

---

Added on October 11, 2007, 11:35 pmbut at 300mm, does the lens suffer?

This post has been edited by Victor3010: Oct 11 2007, 11:35 PM

haha...bro...
tumpang your thread a while also...
asking same question...
i wanna shoot candids and stuff..
for example here, would a 55-200mm be enough?

then the 55-200 would be good enough And the 70-300 was made for the FX sensor, so its obviously good quality.

Orenzai, i suggested a 70-300 for the job

but the price difference is so big

then a 55-200mm with a teleconverter my 40-150 served me really good when i was out on assignment to capture ppl jay walking XD

Suffer from what?

and a 1.5x teleconverter is around how much ler?

i heard that 70-300VR got 4 stops (for vibration reduction) while 55-200VR only got 2 stops
if you got budget, 70-300VR definitely better

If you plan to take photos for an event like a fashion show or even a sports event like soccer/F1 racing the extra 100mm would give you better shooting length.

Any telephoto zoom will suffer a little softness at it's furthest range. For the 70-300mm, the range from 100mm to 200 mm is very sharp.

It's also good for landscapes.

If you have the budget, go ahead and get it.

I dont think this lens can work with a teleconverter, both 55-200 and 70-300mm. You will need a constant aperture lens to do so.

Nikon AF teleconverters costs at least RM1000 and they're are only compatible with the following lenses: 200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor, 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor, 400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor, 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S ,70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor, 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor, 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor, 500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor, 600mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor

Not all lenses can be used with teleconverters.

This post has been edited by calvin_gsc: Oct 12 2007, 04:39 AM

thnx...very informative...
so i guess i dun have the budget...i just go for 55-200 lar...its 1k less
when i kena lottery then i get a 70-300...

I won't be using a full frame, an APS-C sensor perhaps..but according to some website, they say full frame, the sides can suffer from some image flaws, the middle part is the best...this lens is pretty worth to think about..

---

Added on October 12, 2007, 6:15 pmthanks for ur info by the way...but is the softness very visible?

---

Added on October 12, 2007, 6:16 pmyup...70-300 is a VRII so it do have better stops.

This post has been edited by Victor3010: Oct 12 2007, 06:16 PM

lao 15 this year and i doubt you'll fork up your own money to get your camera. since someone is sponsoring, why not get a 70-200 f2.8 VR? it's a very handy lens

i got myself a 70-300 because i couldnt afford 70-200 VR YET. but then again, i was comparing between 70-300 to 18-200 70-300 is cheaper hahah

55-200 is like 6k right?
do you think your parents would fork out so much for you?
i wanna get a 55-200 normal one edi so hard...dun say bout fast lens lagi...

yeah it's expensive...
but to some ppl, if money is nt an object, it shouldn't be a problem..

It's not the best lens to start with. Besides, it's way too expensive for the moment I think for TS.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is close to 6K not the 55-200mm.

Hey victor, try and butter your parents for a 18-200mm VR. I believe it's a better lens to start off. Between wide and telephoto. Best of both worlds. If you have a telephoto lens, it'd be hard to use it to take group photos (if you do) and you'd need to stand way back to get everyone in the frame.

Normally people wont have a telephoto attached all the time, unless you're a sports photographer.

Or are you set on a telephoto for any specific reason?

Try and convince your parents, cause for lenses, you must invest on one which you will use all the time, and not one that doesn't help you further or improve your photographic skills. Cause I believe having just a telephoto is a limitation on your photographic subject matter.

Oh yeah, about the softness in telephoto lenses... it is only noticeable if you zoom/magnify closely the photo in your computer. But if you develop 4R sized photos, it's not noticeable.

This post has been edited by calvin_gsc: Oct 13 2007, 01:49 PM

Hmm, I don't think anybody would spend on a DSLR system just to be able to develop decent photos not bigger than 4R...

for me i target is the 70-300mm ..which equaivalent to 600mm on my E510!!