Nikon 55-200 (non-vr) upgrade?

I received a 55-200mm (non-vr) bundled with my D3300 which I have used with relative success to freeze action shots of german shepherds performing obedience (clearing jumps etc) and protection work (jumps and running).
This was done outside in bright sunshine,however this was done on the auto sports setting prior to me going for some basic training. (no longer use auto mode)

Generally I will only ever use a telephoto outside during the day, since I have a 35mm f/1.8 for low light shooting.

Would it be worth my while to upgrade from the non-vr lens to the 55-200 vr lens? I know the vr can help with camera shake when zooming in and with low-light conditions. Would an overcast grey sky be considered as low light?
Or is there no need upgrade as long as I always shoot in bright daylight?

Or would the 55-300mm VR be a better option giving me longer reach?
There were times when 200mm wasn't enough while shooting the dogs but I would only need the extra 100mm reach during competitions ( maybe +/- 5 times a year).

I've read a lot of negative comments about the 55-300 focus speed but my assumption is if the 55-200 non-vr could focus and track the dogs then surely the 55-300 could as well?

Thanks

John

If you're happy with the non VR preformance meaning image quality, then pick up a refurbished 55_200 VR for a hundred bucks.
I did that, and pretty happy with it.

I have the 55-300mm and can't complain about the focus speed, but then again I haven't used the 55-200 to compare it too. Maybe take your camera to a shop and try the 55-300mm VR on your camera and see if it is up to the job for what you want.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions.

I'm curious to know if there is any difference in IQ between the 55-200 (non-vr) vs 55-200 vr vs 55-300vr?
From images I've seen I can't see a difference.

At the end of the day I have to decide if the extra 100mm offered in the 55-300 is worth it for my needs.

Another option would be to keep my eyes open for second hand/refurbished versions of both lenses and if they don't work out, not the end of the world.

I'm going to assume that you know what VR is for....hand holding the camera and lens to avoid camera shake/vibration. It is not for use on a tripod.

As for the 55-200...I had one, got rid of it, and went to the 55-300 VR. Never regretted it. Much better lens and IQ, IMHO.

fotojack said:

I'm going to assume that you know what VR is for....hand holding the camera and lens to avoid camera shake/vibration. It is not for use on a tripod.

As for the 55-200...I had one, got rid of it, and went to the 55-300 VR. Never regretted it. Much better lens and IQ, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback regarding the IQ of the 55-300 VR.

I also got the 55-200mm non VR bundled in with my D3200. I have very little to compare it to but the auto focus seems very slow to me and not all that good. Several times I've had to switch to manual because it wouldn't play ball. To an extent I wish I'd gone body only or just got the 18-55 and saved up for a 300mm. The 55-200 is fine for me now but I know pretty soon I'm going to feel the need to upgrade it. But then I think I'll want to use that extra 100mm a lot more than several times a year.