Nikon 55-200mm vs nikon 55-300mm lens

Personally, I find the 55 300 better though some people tend to argue that the 50 200 is better at 200mm. But having said that, the extra reach without cutting down on aperture is worth it and really useful for sports and wildlife.

Thom Hogan's warts and all reviews...



Figure out what is most important to you, then buy the lens that has that more than the other one. Have fun, make nice images.

--

Rob.

DesertRose said:

DesertRose wrote:

Hello

I am thinking of buying a new lens. I have Nikon D 3100 and a kit lens. I am interested in nature, street and sports. I am rather confused as to which one is better. 55-200mm lens or 55-300 mm lens ?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Do you know wha the difference is? They both start where your kit leaves off and then zoom out to either 200mm or 300mm. 300mm would be one third more telephoto than 200mm.. more of a telescope.. more power. They are both very good lenses for the money.

Without a doubt in the world, if you can afford the 55-300 VR, I'd get it because it allows considerably more reach. More distant items will be within your reach. It would be much better for sports, nature, wildlife and birds. For the street, your regular kit lens might still be the best.

The 55-200 VR is a nice little lens but would be more of a compromise choice because you couldn't or didn't want to afford the longer lens. Go to the store and put the 55-300 on your camera. Zoom out from 55 to 200, then all the way to 300 and see what the difference means to you. Don't do this inside. Take it out front.

Good luck and have fun.

Thanks everyone. I intend to buy 55- 300mm. The extra reach of his lens is helpful

Good choice. Enjoy the lens!