What’s Your Preference?

SuperDan · #1 (**permalink**) 01-30-2010, 07:22 PM

Ok, I am ready to move up into a new lens (thanks to a nice tax refund and an upcoming Disney World trip) and I am so torn on which ways to go for my telezoom. I've been doing my homework and reading alot of peoples posts here... but am still torn...

I have a D40 and am under a constrained budget (approx $2-300), but then also knowing that 5-10 years down the road I will be upgrading to a D90 or above anyway... Also, I should be buying the 35mm soon but also want to get the telezoom as I do alot of landscapes and a little action.

I've narrowed down to three of them and here they go...
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR roughly $215
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro roughly $155
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (non VR) roughly $155

I really want some longer zoom but I know that I cannot afford VR added to the tamron & nikon 70-300.
I have a very nice tripod and love using it... but, what are some other pros & cons...

I love the Tamron with the built in macro as I love to take up close photos of flowers and the price is perfect as I would still like to take more money and also invest in a speedlight too..

Does the VR really make that much of a difference that I would sacrifice an addtional 100mm of zoom and at least $60 bucks difference?

Unfortunatley, there is nowhere around me that I can "try" any of these and I dont want to pay the rental money...

*also I would like to stay with the 52mm size as my other filters and such

OsmosisStudios · #2 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 02:09 AM

55-200 VR, hands down.

GadgetRick · #3 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 03:17 PM

The VR--any type of image stabilization--makes a big difference. It's well worth it.

My only concern is, will the lenses you're looking at be wide enough for you? I don't know as I don't know your shooting style. Not long ago I was looking for a lens and wound up with the Sigma 18-200 with OS (their VR) and love it as a walk-around lens. It's a very good lens (has the normal drawbacks of an all-in-one lens) and the OS works very well. I can go wide enough for just about anything I need and I have a good enough reach. Might be a little out of your range but worth the extra dollars (I got a great deal on mine from Abe's of Maine--cheaper than anyone else out there at the time.).

Nikon also makes a very good 18-200 VR but it's about $200 more than the Sigma. Tamron makes an 18-270mm--which I wanted--but a little more than the Sigma and I was on a bit of a budget.

However, if it's out of the choices you mentioned, I'd go with the Nikon. That's the best of what you've been considering in your original post.

wulf · #4 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 04:26 PM

My 70-300mm is my least used lens. It's okay but relatively slow, soft and prone to camera shake. I find that those things are worse at the 300mm lens and I also get significant chromatic aberration (purple fringing) in bright conditions so I tend to avoid pushing all the way out there.

I haven't tried any VR lenses so can't comment on what that adds - it won't be a particular benefit if you often take your tripod out so it depends how much you do sports vs landscapes.

Wulf

wannabephotographer · #5 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 04:30 PM

55-200 for me.

Aegea · #6 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 08:58 PM

Even the new 70-300 is soft at 300, and I believe the older models are worse.

OsmosisStudios · #7 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegea

Even the new 70-300 is soft at 300, and I believe the older models are worse.

That depends. it CAN be good at 300 (i've certainly managed), but it wont beat the 300 f/4 or f/2.8 primes, not be a longshot.

It's on par with the 80-400 at 300mm, actually.

Aegea · #8 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 12:31 AM

@Osmosis - Maybe I have a bad example of the 70-300, mine is not really usable at f5.6 and is still soft at f8. I am contemplating selling it to get a prime 300 or 400, in fact.