Nikon 70-300 or 55-200

[DivotMaker]

Loving my D90 and have had a ton of fun with my 50mm, but I am starting to feel the need to take the next step on lenses....I have been thinking along the lines of these two:

Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR Zoom-Nikkor F/4.5-5.6G ED-IF
or
Nikon AF-S 55-200mm VR DX Zoom-Nikkor F/4-5.6G ED

Other than the obvious zoom difference, and price difference...any suggestions or advice?

I dont mind laying down the cash for the 70-300mm as long as it is worth the extra $$.

Would love to hear comments from anyone who owns either of these.

Thanks,

Divot

[OsmosisStudios]

The build on the 70-300 is higher, and its a bit more featured. If money isnt an issue with these, the 70-300 wins hands down.

[DivotMaker]

Thanks for the advice. I was leaning more towards that way, but wasnt sure about the overall difference.

Thanks again,

Divot

[Azaki]

Remember the 70-300mm lens is FX format, NOT DX and will act like a 105-450mm Lens on the D90

[Sterling]

Originally Posted by Azaki

Remember the 70-300mm lens is FX format, NOT DX and will act like a 105-450mm Lens on the D90

millimeters are millimeters. And they all act the same.

[dcclark]

Yes, all lenses are labeled in a consistent manner. So 55-200 and 70-300 are written in the same (35mm) terms. Whether each lens can be used on a full-frame (FX) camera doesn't matter at all.

I also would recommend the 70-300 if possible. Better build quality, better optics, and a bit longer anyhow.

[DivotMaker]

Originally Posted by Azaki

Remember the 70-300mm lens is FX format, NOT DX and will act like a 105-450mm Lens on the D90

millimeters are millimeters. And they all act the same.

{head spinning}
ok, not sure I totally understand this. Can someone explain?

[OsmosisStudios]

Digital sensors come in several sizes, though Nikon uses two: DX and FX. FX is the same size as a frame of 35mm film, so lenses act on these cameras just as they did on film.

DX is half the size, and as such only uses the center portion of the image that the lens projects. As such, it has a "crop factor" of x1.5, so all focal lengths (listed on the lens) have to be multiplied by 1.5.

The confusion arises because Nikon make DX lenses. These lenses are smaller and project an image that is only big enough to cover the DX sensor. What some people get hung up on is that crop factor and think that it's a factor of the lens and not the body.

Regardless of what lens youre using, a mm is a mm. So a 50mm focal length is the same whether its on a DX lens (like the 18-55) or on an FX lens (like the 24-70).

What happens, though, is that the 18-55 on DX acts like a 27-85 because of the crop factor. What that means is that if you set the 18-55 to 50mm on a DX camera it'll look the same as a lens set to 75mm on an FX camera.

The confusion in this particular thread is that the 55-200 is a DX lens and the 70-300 is an FX lens. Each are subject to the crop factor if placed on a DX camera. THe only problem arises if one were to place them on an FX camera: the 70-300 would act normally while the 55-200 would cause the camera to switch to the DX mode and would act as a 85-300.

Your D90 has a smaller DX sensor, and as such is subject to the crop factor. What this means is that the 55-200 acts as a 85-300 while the 70-300 acts as a 105-450.

[DivotMaker]

Thanks Osmosis!

That makes more sense now.

Now another couple questions, if you dont mind.

Currently, I have a 50mm 1.8D

This popped up on craigslist this morning: Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II ED Lens $85.00

1. Is this a decent price for the 18-55 ?
2. Would these three (50mm, 70-300, 18-55) cover me, or am I going to have a blank area between 55 and 70 that I need to worry about?
3. Is there something else I should be looking at?

I really appreciate any input,

Divot

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by DivotMaker

1. Is this a decent price for the 18-55 ?
2. Would these three (50mm, 70-300, 18-55) cover me, or am I going to have a blank area between 55 and 70 that I need to worry about?
3. Is there something else I should be looking at?

1. The 18-55 is the kit lens which comes with almost all low-end Nikons... are you sure you don't have it already? It's an OK price, but I'd save up for something better, personally. The lens is very cheaply made. Its image quality is surprisingly decent, but it is more liable to fall apart on you.

2. Those three would more than cover you. How often have you had to shoot at exactly 60mm? That's what your feet are for! :P Don't worry about gaps of only a few millimeters.

3. Depends. What do you want to do with your camera? What kinds of photos are you interested in taking?