I have decided to buy a new nikon lens for my d5100 and was wondering if anyone can give me info on the above lenses. The 70-200mm is around £140 and the 70-300mm is over £300. I know the 300mm would give me a better range but iam on a budget and its a bit out of my price range at the moment. Is there really that much difference between the two lenses.
70-200mm vs 70-300mm
- Thread starter donny1972
- Start date
Are you sure that the 70-200 is only 140? or maybe 1400?
The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII is definitely NOT for photographers on a budget unless their budget is around 1,850 pounds.
Nikon 70-200/2,8G AF-S IF-ED VR II, JAA807DA: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics
Nikon 70-300mm is a decent lens but it gets softer on the long end.
Nikon 70-200/2,8G AF-S IF-ED VR II, JAA807DA: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics
Nikon 70-300mm is a decent lens but it gets softer on the long end.
??? I'm not questioning what Ranie said. I'm wondering your reasoning for asking about 2 particular lenses, then showing a link for a completely different one. What Ranie questioned was your price of the 70-300. The link you posted showed the price of the 55-300......not the 70-300. This is what you wrote: The 70-200mm is around £140 and the 70-300mm is over £300.
Then you gave a link for the 55-300. ???
Berkerk
Senior Member
And now you're confusing matters - I think you both mean the 55-200! ;-)
Donny, which 70-200 are you talking about? Are you talking about an older AIS 70-200 f4? or the newer 70-200 f2.8? There is a world of difference. For the amount you mentioned in your original post, I'm sure it just can't be the 70-200 2.8. If it is, it's a scam and you will never get it for that price. It could be the 55-200. Please make yourself clear before you ask us to give you our opinions.
If you can get the extra money, the 70-200 is the best.
This is the lens i seen on amazon.Nikon 55-200MM F/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX Black Lens: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics I know its not a 2.8 but it seems very cheap. Anyone know if it is any good? Ps dont know much about cameras and lenses lol.
That link is to a 55-200 lens. You're confusing yourself about which lens you want. You ask about the 70-200 and the 70-300............but you link to a 55-200. Get it straight, bud!
You've answered your own question: "it seems very cheap".
So maybe it is…
Con't forget you always get what you pay for. If you can't afford good, wait for the money to be there or be aware that you might loose money when you want to upgrade it later. And you will.
Question, are you looking at the 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 VR??? or the None VR version??? 70-300 with out VR would be hard for a beginner to take any hand held pics with anything but 1/300 sec shutter speeds..... I would either just get the 55-200mm VR for now if money is tight and then save up and get the 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 VR or the big 70-200mm F2.8.... Later...
Berkerk
Senior Member
If you still haven't made up your mind this collection of reviews should help http://m.techradar.com/news/photogr...hoto-zoom-nikon-lens-1043012?src=rss&attr=all
As an owner of the 70-300VR G, and former owner if the 55-200, I would like to say the 70-300 is well worth the extra expense. It's sharper than the 55-200, has the true ring type AFS motor, so you can do manual focus touchups at the twist of the focus ring, and the VR is just flat out amazing. And it's also built very, very well. I highly reccommend it 
Here's a couple of sampls I shot with mine:
Here's a couple of sampls I shot with mine: