Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZekeMenuar" data-source="post: 55280" data-attributes="member: 8718">Of the choices given #3I have the 55-300 and it's a pretty good lens.Now for the op/ed portion of the thread.If I was in your shoes, I'd pick the 55-200 DX VR zoom over the 55-300.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why you ask?The 55-300 is a good sharp lens but it's slow to focus and acquire past 200 mm.&nbsp; The 55-200mm is light, sharp fast to auto-focus and acquire.&nbsp; If you need to shoot something in a hurry, the 55-300 isn't the lens.I use the 55-200 as my walkaround lens and usually have the 18-55 or the 35mm AF-S DX f1.8 lens in a pocket.The reason I bought the 55-300 was I had a couple of hundred bucks left over from my tax return and I got a refurb for $269.I rented a 18-200 and I was underwhelmed.&nbsp; The images were a bit soft and it's a brick.&nbsp; YMMV.&nbsp; I think the 55-200 and the 35mm together weigh less than the 18-200 by itself.&nbsp; However I'm waiting for Nikon to release the 18-300 in the states.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZekeMenuar, post: 55280, member: 8718"] Of the choices given #3 I have the 55-300 and it's a pretty good lens. Now for the op/ed portion of the thread. If I was in your shoes, I'd pick the 55-200 DX VR zoom over the 55-300. Why you ask? The 55-300 is a good sharp lens but it's slow to focus and acquire past 200 mm. The 55-200mm is light, sharp fast to auto-focus and acquire. If you need to shoot something in a hurry, the 55-300 isn't the lens. I use the 55-200 as my walkaround lens and usually have the 18-55 or the 35mm AF-S DX f1.8 lens in a pocket. The reason I bought the 55-300 was I had a couple of hundred bucks left over from my tax return and I got a refurb for $269. I rented a 18-200 and I was underwhelmed. The images were a bit soft and it's a brick. YMMV. I think the 55-200 and the 35mm together weigh less than the 18-200 by itself. However I'm waiting for Nikon to release the 18-300 in the states. [/QUOTE]

Verification