lens advice

[HLTJR]

i bought a d3100 with 18-55mm lens, 55-200mm vr lens. I was wanting a little more zoom for wildlife and my kids playing soccer, i was looking at the nikon 70-300mm vr lens. What are your opinions on getting this lens since i am covered from 18mm out to 200mm. Trying to stay on budget as well. I also considered getting a teleconvertor but at my local camera shop they told me that it would not work well enough on my d3100. Help please.

[scootermcq]

Sell the 55-200 and get the 55-300 if you are trying to stay in a budget. Your body is DX, so there is no reason to spend the money on an FX lens. You would also be duplicating most of the range by having those two lenses.

[HLTJR]

but isnt the 70 -300 a faster and better lens than the 55-300. the 70-300 is in my budget

[Azaki]

The 70-300mm on a DX body gives an equivalent focal length of 105-450mm (due to the crop factor of a DX body the angle of view changes), so you get the extra reach for less. I have it and it's great. The only caveat is that it doesn't have SWM so the focus is slightly slower then a lens with SWM, and for the auto-focus to work you camera body MUST have a built in focus motor.

[Phillydog1958]

I'd sell the 55-200 and go with the 70-300. With your 18-55 and the 70-300, you've covered most of the focal range. You're only losing 15 millimeters. It's better than duplicating with a 18-55, 55-200 and the 70-300.

I've recently purchased mine and I'm impressed with it. I took it on a recent vacation and got some great shots. It does well in low-light situations. Also, the 55-200 and the 55-300, both have plastic mounting, whereas the 70-300 has metal mounting. It's a better lens.

Check out this link: Nikon 55-300mm VR
Ken Rockwell discusses the 55-300 and the 70-300.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by Azaki

The 70-300mm on a DX body gives an equivalent focal length of 105-450mm (due to the crop factor of a DX body the angle of view changes), so you get the extra reach for less. I have it and it's great. The only caveat is that it doesn't have SWM so the focus is slightly slower then a lens with SWM, and for the auto-focus to work you camera body MUST have a built in focus motor.

First, any 300mm lens DX or FX both have the equivalent reach through sensor cropping of 450mm. 300mm is 300mm it is the smaller sensor that is cropping the image. Secondly, a non AF-s lens will not autofocus on that body period, so I assume we are talking about the 70-300 AF-s VR lens.

Originally Posted by Phillydog1958

I'd sell the 55-200 and go with the 70-300. With your 18-55 and the 70-300, you've covered most of the focal range. You're only losing 15 millimeters. It's better than duplicating with a 18-55, 55-200 and the 70-300.

I've recently purchased mine and I'm impressed with it. I took it on a recent vacation and got some great shots. It does well in low-light situations. Also, the 55-200 and the 55-300, both have plastic mounting, whereas the 70-300 has metal mounting. It's a better lens.

This is probably the better advice. You do not need to cover every mm of the the focal length scale (if 55mm is too short, step closer and if 70 is too long, step back) and the 70-300 lens is better constructed, faster at AF and if decide to upgrade later to full frame an FX lens. I said 55-300 because you seemed concerned about covering 55-70, but it is not really necessarily. Which ever way you go, dump the 55-200 as you don't need it.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by HLTJR

but isnt the 70 -300 a faster and better lens than the 55-300. the 70-300 is in my budget

Perfect... see my comment above, buy the 70-300 and sell the 55-200 and use the money to buy a 35mm or 50mm f1.8 for low light shooting

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

Perfect... see my comment above, buy the 70-300 and sell the 55-200 and use the money to buy a 35mm or 50mm f1.8 for low light shooting

Do make sure it's the AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR and not the AF-D 70-300 f/4-5.6