New Lens For Christmas

[SaturnStrobe]

My mum and dad are kindly going to get me a new lens for Christmas as at the moment I only have the stock 18-55mm VR that came with my D3000. I am after a lens with a longer focal length but don't think I can ask them to stump up too much for an expensive lens. The three I have been looking at are...

Nikon 70-300 at around £150
Sigma 70-300 at around £130
Nikon 55-200 with VR at around £160

I don't think I'm willing to go for the VR versions of the 70-300 lenses at around £400. Do you think the VR is pretty essential at these longer focal lengths as I have never owned a lense without this. From what I have read it will probably allow me to stop down roughly 4 shutter speeds which sounds quite essential if I'm not using a tripod.

Advice appreciated

[OsmosisStudios]

I have VR on my 70-300 (the latest, 4.5-5.6 version), and it has saved many an image. I find it invaluable at anything longer than 150mm (in 35mm equivalent terms), which means about 100mm on a DX body like the D3000.

Of the options, the best would probably be the 55-200 VR, but if they can, the 70-300 VR would be considerably better

[SaturnStrobe]

Thanks for the advice. Why is it that you say the 70-300 is "considerably better" than the 55-200, apart from the length are there other advantages? I don't doubt it's better as there is a clear price difference but why is this?

[OsmosisStudios]

Image quality and build.

The 70-300 VR is comparable to the 70-200 f/2.8 VR over the same range in common apertures, though there are some differences. The 55-200 is good, but really needs to be stopped way down (f/11, usually) and at that point you pretty much need direct sunlight and/or high ISOs to get anything useable with it.

The 70-300 is also built better: it's a semi-pro lens, not a consumer lens: metal mount, tougher body, some features the 55-200 doesnt gave (focus scale, focus ring, etc).

It's kinda like comparing a Hummer to a Jeep. Both will go off-road and do a decent job, but a proper humvee will do it more easily and effectively.

[SaturnStrobe]

Great help so far osmosis im liking it. If i can just pick your brain a little bit more. I know from other posts that you love the nikon lens but another little thing that interested me about the sigma lens was that it claims to have good macro ability, is the similar nikon lens a dab hand at macro at all?

From the comments so far what i think i might do is put some of my money towards getting the better lens as it might be better in the long run.

There is one on sale second hand from amazon at £300 which is "like new" with all caps and hood etc supplied, is a 2nd hand lens a good idea or a no go?

[OsmosisStudios]

I cant comment on the Sigma as I've not tried it. I do know, though, that the "macro" ability it claims is simply a close-focusing system. It gets to about 1:2 - 1.3, which is close, but not really macro range. The Nikon variant focuses down to 4.5 feet (54 inches) while the SIgma focuses down to just over 3 feet (38 inches). This means that the lens will focus to a subject that is 38" (or 54") away or further.

Like I said, neither offers a true macro.

When it comes to lenses, I prefer to buy first-hand, for several reasons. 1: im a bit obsessive compulsive. There are very few things I buy second hand, and those that I do it's because its simple not possible to buy first hand. 2: I trust Nikon's QC over Joe Shmo's and finally 3: I like new boxes Whether there's enough of a difference is up to you.

[firebox40dash5]

I've bought 2 of my 3 lenses (an 18-105mm VR and the Nikon 70-300mm VR) 'used' (but in like-new condition), and saved quite a bit over buying them new. However, I bought them from a camera store, in person. I'd be a bit less comfortable buying a used lens from a 3rd party on Amazon, especially since they offer no real way for the vendor to show a picture of the actual product. I think in that case, even ebay offers more security. You can also see about finding a reputable forum member selling one.

I've never owned either of the 70-300mm Sigmas (the OS, or the 'Macro'), nor the 55-200mm Nikon VR, but I've been nothing but happy with my 70-300mm VR. It costs a little more than the 55-200mm (I paid just under $400 for mine), but has better build quality, equal or better optics on DX cameras, and better VR and focusing- especially the ability to override the AF without moving the switch to M, which drove me nuts when I had an 18-55mm VR. As well as internal focusing, so the front element doesn't rotate. It's not the 'fastest', either in aperture or autofocus, the lightest, or the best, but it offers an excellent compromise for the cost. It's also easy enough to hand-hold and carry, but so are the other three in this case.

[Shokinen]

Hey SaturnStrobe,

I'm also using a 70-300mm VR and I love the feel / quality of the lens. It's more expensive than the 55-200 but it's worth every penny. I started with the 18-55 just like you and the 70-300 was my first lens. I saw a difference (on monitor, not on prints) in contrasts and images were a bit sharper, thanks to the ED glasses.

The 55-200 is not a bad lens and you will get closer of your subject (this was your first intention). Image quality is also very good. But if your budget permits, the 70-300 is definitly a step up.

[SaturnStrobe]

Thanks too all of you for helping me out on this one. I think the decision is im going to go for the 70-300 nikon. Just need to put some of my savings towards it i think but im sure it will be worth it. Hopefully this post actually helps other people out as well as this is probably a common route for new DSLR users to take.

Cheers