Nikon 55-200 vs 55-300

[DNSJR]

Hello, I am considering either a Nikon AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Lens or a Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens for my D7100

I found this comparison on DxO

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II on Nikon D7100 vs Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR on Nikon D7100 | DXOMARK

www.dxomark.com

which to me as a beginner indicates that the 55-200 is a better lens

Based on your experience, is this accurate?

I would give more weight to image quality, over the the extra range of the 55-300

I would appreciate any feed back

Thanks so much

 

[BGD300V1]

My only chance to compare the two was with the FT-1 on a V1 body. Here are the results.

55-200mm on Nikon 1 V1 via FT-1

55-300mm on Nikon 1 V1 via FT-1

55-200mm above cropped to approximate the 300mm FOV

These were taken from my blog at https://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/a-snake-in-the-grass-and-trying-out-glass/

--
Formerly BG5700 and BGD300
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com
My camera club porfolio: http://www.pacameraclub.com/Member.Galleries/Brian_20Grant/index.html
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
WSSA #51 as bg5700

 

[eastriding4310]

Price might be another consideration. Yesterday I bought a mint condition Nikon AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Lens from Roberts Camera on eBay for $97 delivered. They have several more.

I need the small size for use on my Nikon 1 V2 and for video on my D500.

 

[DNSJR]

thanks, yes, B&H has a refurbished 55-200 for $99.95, with free shipping, and has a #10 conditioned 55-300 for $270

 

[GlennW]

A new $149 55-200 VR2 is a great companion for a 18-55 VR2 kit lens. It makes a nice light weight in good light lens.

On a D7100 if you already have a 18-140 you may find too much overlap from 55-140. Not sure if you may save a stop @ F4 @ 55mm vrs the 18-140.

In your case the 55-300 VR may be a better buy to get the extra reach.

For about $499 the 70-300 VR may be the best of the 3 consumer grade lens.

 

[DNSJR]

Thanks, I have looked at the 70-300 and the Tamron 70-300 as well, but it's not in the budget; and the extra reach is a factor with the 55-300

 

[PSCL1]

In your situation, the 55-300.

 

[Escaping]

I would give more weight to image quality, over the the extra range of the 55-300

you kinda have your answer already: more weight to IQ over the extra range.

yes, the 55-200 is quite good for the money

and only marginally better than the 55-300 in the 55-200 range ... not much though.

 

[Esquilo]

Hello, I am considering either a Nikon AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Lens or a Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens for my D7100

I found this comparison on DxO

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp....6G-DX-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100__1472_865_324_865

which to me as a beginner indicates that the 55-200 is a better lens

Based on your experience, is this accurate?

I would give more weight to image quality, over the the extra range of the 55-300

I would appreciate any feed back

The 55-200 is lighter, cheaper and somewhat better optically (at 55 mm noticeably better, but at 200 mm it's a tie). On the other hand it has a plastic mount whilst the 55-300 has a more durable metal mount.

Personally I would stay away from any of these lenses, unless weight is the crucial factor, and aim for a used Nikon or Tamron 70-300 mm instead.

 

[Shunda77]

Hello, I am considering either a Nikon AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Lens or a Nikon AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens for my D7100

I found this comparison on DxO

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp....6G-DX-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D7100__1472_865_324_865

which to me as a beginner indicates that the 55-200 is a better lens

Based on your experience, is this accurate?

I would give more weight to image quality, over the the extra range of the 55-300

I would appreciate any feed back

Thanks so much

This is the great failing of these DXO comparisons as there is simply too much other information omitted or not understood that may be critical to lens choice.
While it is true that the 55-200 appears to be slightly sharper at some focal lengths and apertures, the differences are actually relatively minor.

However....

The 55-300 shoots at f5 wide open at 200 and the 55-200 at f 5.6 - advantage to the 55-300

The 55-300 has much better magnification ratio which gives it very competent tele-macro capability - advantage 55-300

The 55-300 has 9 rounded aperture blades and a lens design that produces outstanding bokeh - advantage 55-300

The 55-300 is also 100mm longer, with a metal mount and dust sealing.

These are all issues that will have a substantially greater positive effect on your photography (with the right subject matter) than a small difference in absolute sharpness.
The 55-200 is a fine low cost and acceptably sharp lens, but in that regard it is really a one trick pony.

The 55-300 has considerably more creative potential with a much broader range of subject matter.

 

[DNSJR]

great information, thanks so much; it appears that the 55-300 is the one

thanks again