Keep the 55-200?

I hope to pick up the Nikon 55-300mm 4.5 soon. My dilema is should I hold onto the 55-200 VR 4.0? I could trade it in at the local shop and get $100 off another lens, I paid $149 for it when I bought my D3100 a few months ago. I can't decide if I should keep it or not. The money really isn't an issue, but I hate to hold onto something I may not use again.

Pros for keeping it- It is a little faster (I live in a gloomy climate). It is significantly smaller.

Cons- Would I really notice the difference between f4 and 4.5? Is the size difference really a big deal?

For those of you that have owned both, is there anything you miss about the 55-200?

Would appreciate any feedback, Thanks!

I can only speak to my experience. I bought the 28-300, and since have not used the 55-200 a single time. Really love the new lens.

I would get the 55-300 if I had the money. I had the 55-200 VR, and I can tell you, I would certainly prefer the 55-300 for the extra reach.

If I had the 55-300 I would def sell my 55-200. I honestly don't like the 55-200 that much.

I agree. I would sell or trade the 55-200mm. With both you would have a lot of overlap in focal length range and you will soon find the 55-200mm sitting around unused. I don't think you will notice much difference between the f/4 and f/4.5. And to me the extra reach of the 55-300mm out weighs the size difference.

cnyram,
I had both and sold the 55-200 and never looked back. The 55-300 is an awesome lens. The difference in size is not significant, the low end is the same when you zoom out and you gain the extra reach. I know the first time you have the 55-200 on and go out and miss a shot you wish you had the 300 for you will never put it back on the camera. I could make a case for keeping it if you had the 70-300 but not the 55-300. Put the money towards something else. JHHO

Mark E said:

I can only speak to my experience. I bought the 28-300, and since have not used the 55-200 a single time. Really love the new lens.

Click to expand...

Same here, lucky for my wife when I did a camera upgrade she was given the 55-200mm, have never missed it once. I agree with everyone else here, no need to hang on to it.

A note on 300mm f/5.6. At 300mm kind of dark and gray needs more light. Thanks to advice given here, raising your ISO to 800-1000 and shooting f/8 helps a lot. I don't know how well the D3100 handles higher ISO's. I know from experience the D3000 (I have one) does not and think one of the upgrades the D3100 has over the D3000 is better higher ISO handling.

Thanks for the input guys, I will probubly sell it to help fund a 55-300 or the 70-300 VR

I finally was able to sell my 70-300 and bought the 55-300 VR. It's a decision I'm most happy with, and don't regret it at all. The 55-300 is a great lens. I don't miss my 55-200 VR at all.

Congratulations on the new lens. You are going to love it. You loose nothing from the 55-200 and gain some great reach.

Hey guys, I have a 55-200mm took it with me on my trip to Sweden. It served me well (wish I would have had the 300).
I just order a 70-300mm and can't wait to get it today. I am slowly getting away from DX lenses.
I have only two left, the 55-200mm & the 18-135mm. I will let you guys know how the 70-300mm VR works on my D7000 & D200 after I play with it awhile. I think I may get rid of my 55-200mm as well down the road. I have a feeling its going to sit in my camera bag...lol?

I own the 55-200mm and wanted something with a longer reach and bought the 55-300mm and was at first very disapointed.

The first thing I did when getting it was buy a cheap UV & a CPL filter on eBay. I have the same filters (different brand) for my 200mm lens and thought it would be a logical combination for the 300mm as well.

In cold weather it was real slow focusing. The pictures were not as crisp ---- and then I started thinking about what possibly could be the problem since everyone else was raving about theirs.

I have to go back to the start in my evaluation now since I realized that the CPL filter was causing the problems and not the lens.

Here is an example of a shot I took a week ago that is not really spectacular and needs more contrast, but it was a quick point and shoot situation before the duck flew off and the lens did a great job in spite of me.

Too bad that image you uploaded is so small. Hard to make out anything. Try and send any future photos at 800x600. Easier to see. 128x97 just doesn't cut it.

Still learning my way around here. The bigger image is in my profile album.

Nice shot KW, I think with filters I'd either get real good ones or go without, I do not use them, Although I would like a good CPL

Thanks, I don't wish to drag this thread off topic but is there a thread that covers CPL filter orientation? I just happened to notice one day when I took the filter off that by turning the outer ring weird things happened.

KWJams said:

Thanks, I don't wish to drag this thread off topic but is there a thread that covers CPL filter orientation? I just happened to notice one day when I took the filter off that by turning the outer ring weird things happened.

Click to expand...

It's actually supposed to do that. Rotate to the desired effect while you are composing your shot.

That is what I ended up figuring out. I have a CPL for my 200mm and the pictures are always crisp and well focused zoomed in or out but the 300mm loses a lot of contrast and the focus looks muddy. The 200mm CPL was bought at a big box tech retail store and the 300mm CPL came cheap on eBay. Polarized filters work by filtering light horizontally and by turning the outer ring less light is filtered the way I understand. So is the 300mm not a good lens to use a CPL since the glass is larger --- or is the filter I bought on eBay just pretty colored glass?

KWJams said:

That is what I ended up figuring out. I have a CPL for my 200mm and the pictures are always crisp and well focused zoomed in or out but the 300mm loses a lot of contrast and the focus looks muddy. The 200mm CPL was bought at a big box tech retail store and the 300mm CPL came cheap on eBay. Polarized filters work by filtering light horizontally and by turning the outer ring less light is filtered the way I understand. So is the 300mm not a good lens to use a CPL since the glass is larger --- or is the filter I bought on eBay just pretty colored glass?

Click to expand...

Sometimes the quality of the CPL filter comes into play. What brand is it? The 55-300 is not a low light type of lens at 1:4.5-5.6. This is a lens that needs light to be optimally effective. Brands I would recommend would be B+W, Tiffen and Hoya for best results. Also....are you using your polarizer on top of a UV lens filter? Some are darker than others, determined by the coating. This will affect the light entering your lens, too
Polarizers work best at right angles to the sun. When pointed directly into the sun or directly away, they do almost nothing.
Don’t use a polarizing filter in indoors or in low light situations. Remember that a polarizer can drastically cut down the amount of light entering the camera. Don’t forget to take it off when you go indoors, enter a thick forest, or anytime your light is reduced.

A final comment: I'd like to direct your attention to this website: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml

Let me put it this way -- the CPL from eBay cost more shipping it than it actually cost.

Thanks for the link and your help.