worth replacing 55-200mm?

[rece2000]

i was looking to replace my 55-200mm lens i got with my first dslr camera. i don't have a huge budget, so was looking at the 18-140mm, 18-200mm, or 18-300mm. i have 2 prime lenses: 50mm and 85mm. i also have a tamron 17-50mm f2.8. i know people say you should stay away from getting lenses that overlap a lot in their focal lengths. my question is, since i have that tamron lens, is it worth replacing my 55-200 lens with any of the 3 i mentioned? they are all rated slightly higher than the 55-200 on dxomark.com, but isn't by much. wondering if anyone has any of these lenses, and if they can tell me if they offer anything of value to be worth me purchasing.

thanks!

 

[bechdan]

I replaced my 18-55 and 55-200 with an 18-200 simply because I couldnt be doing with the faff of changing lenses.
Ive got a better lenses for other stuff but the 18-200 is a good general purpose lens. I cant comment on the other two as ive not used them

 

[JackStalk]

I would just keep the 55-200, it's a solid piece of glass and there's so many used ones for sale today that it almost isn't worth selling.

 

[ideacipher]

If I were you I would get a 70-200 2.8 Tamron (bad ass lens), Nikon (if you have the budget) or lastly Sigma. You'll be complementing your collection and staying away from the DX super zooms. Your lenses (well good ones) are going to be with you a lot longer than your camera bodies and all the crap glass and stuff you don't shoot will get sold or forgot along the way. If you do sell the 55-200 it will not be for much so you could keep it around like I did just for a light tele. Just my opinion and I'm not saying super zooms are bad because they are not but with your line up if it were me I would be adding a 70-200 2.8.

 

[fotojack]

I had a 55-200 once....got rid of it a month later. Now I stick with an 18-105. I also have a 28-105, but that's another story.

Of the three you mentioned looking at, the one I would get is the 18-140. Much better all around lens.

 

[AC016]

If something is rated slightly higher on DXO, then it is not even worth talking about. You will never be able to see that "difference" with your naked eye. If you are wanting a travel lens, then one of the "do it all lenses" will be fine. But if you are wanting to get one of those lenses as a replacement telephoto zoom, then forget it. I would stick with the 55-200 in that case - used to have the lens myself, loved it. So, what do you want? A travel, all in one lens? Or a telephoto zoom? As people have mentioned, you won't get much for it if you sell the 55-200. There are so many out there. You can try and trade it in against a new lens if you want.

 

[rece2000]

i guess i am looking for a more "all around" lens. i actually did purchase the tamron 70-200 but ended up returning it and getting the 85mm instead. it was just too heavy and i wasn't ready to try to attack that yet. i'm not real happy with the quality of my 55-200 lens, but if the other lenses are similar, then you all are right, not worth replacing. i don't think i would ever sell it, but was going to try trading it in and getting the 50 bucks i'd probably get for it just for a little something. i hate to replace my 17-50 2.8, but might actually try to replace that one with one of these other 3 instead. i lose the good aperture, but hoping the image quality would be better than i get with my tamron lens. have never been happy with it, but i keep holding on. i can get by with my 50 and 85 for portraits, at least for now... thanks for all your help!