Lens

ph03n1x

Still on a budget here, and I wanna get another lens to compliment my 18-55mm, and my 50mm f/1.4; I was thinking about a 55-200 or a 70-200 but I don't know which way I wanna go. Anyone got suggestions? They don't have to be Nikon either, I'm fine with a Sigma or Tamron.

ziggy53

If you're on a tight budget the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8 VR lenses may be out of the running as they are pretty pricey.

The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro (with Built-In-Motor for Nikon) is optically a very nice lens but a little slow to focus. It's not horrible but probably not up to a sports/action application.

The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM II Macro has a better AF motor technology but I don't think the optics are quite up to the Tamron.

You don't say what Nikon camera(s) you would use the lens on (and you should always say because it makes a difference in recommendations) but, if you have a body with AF screw drive, like a D80/D90 or better, then you might seriously consider the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D ED. It does not have VR but optically it is a very nice to excellent lens.

The Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR is a very nice lens for the money but it cannot really be considered in the same league as the above lenses. It is awfully slow for indoor although if you use it with a flash with a focus assist light you can focus accurately and fairly quickly.

ph03n1x

I'm using a D50. And usually, I don't bother looking for brand new unless it's that much of a steal. So I go for used.

dahn8

I'm not too familiar with the third party lenses but I did own a 55-200 and currently have a 80-200mm f/2.8. If you have a DX camera then the 55-200 is a decent choice, especially if you are on a budget. The image quality isn't the best esp compared to nikons other offerings (you get what you pay for) but it is a very good choice for the money. I was happy with mine.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is nice but it's pretty expensive, even used. The 80-200mm f2.8 lenses are a bit cheaper used. There are a lot of different models that nikon made in the past though. While I'm not a huge fan of Ken Rockwell, he did put together a table of the various models that I found useful:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm

These lenses are bigger and heavier but also take much better pictures. Autofocusing speed will depend upon your lens model. Some of the older ones you can find for around $500 if I remember correctly.

what do you plan on shooting with this lens? If it's something that involves low light conditions (weddings or indoor sports for example) the 70 or 80-200 f/2.8 will be more useful. If it's just something to use occasionally and if you have a dx lens, the 55-200 may be sufficient. Also, don't forget that on a DX camera the 70 or 80-200mm will be longer due to the crop factor.

EDIT-
sorry if there are some redundancies with ziggys post; it came up while I wa composing my post. I just saw that you posted you have a d50. I believe it won't be able to use the 70 or 80-200mm lenses so you may just have to go with the 55-200 if you go the nikon route

ziggy53

ph03n1x wrote: »

I'm using a D50. And usually, I don't bother looking for brand new unless it's that much of a steal. So I go for used.

I believe that the Nikon D50 "does" have the AF screw drive, similar to the D70. It is not a very robust motor and you might find the AF of a lens like the Nikkor 80-200mm, f2.8 AF-D to be a little slow for action but otherwise it should work nicely. Those lenses are also reasonably available on the used market, but they do tend to hold their value fairly well.

dahn8

ziggy53 wrote: »

I believe that the Nikon D50 "does" have the AF screw drive, similar to the D70. It is not a very robust motor and you might find the AF of a lens like the Nikkor 80-200mm, f2.8 AF-D to be a little slow for action but otherwise it should work nicely. Those lenses are also reasonably available on the used market, but they do tend to hold their value fairly well.

Oops! I stand corrected!

ph03n1x

I was looking around and I saw 70-300mm for pretty cheap. I was wondering if there was any real difference in the VR and non-VR version. Like does one have a faster AF than the other?

angevin1

ph03n1x wrote: »

I was looking around and I saw 70-300mm for pretty cheap. I was wondering if there was any real difference in the VR and non-VR version. Like does one have a faster AF than the other?

I think the Vr is a tad faster, and I've HAD both. I just couldn't sink my teeth into liking either due to what I considered poor iQ. They are light in weight tho.

I have a P.O.S. Quantaray 70-300 that is amazing and was CHEAP! My Son still uses it.

But overall, out of the above lenses mentioned, having owned the 80-200mm f/2.8 I can say it's optic's are STELLAR! a wee bit slow if you're a B-ball or other fast moving Sports photog, but for the average portrait with better than average results that will please your wallet, you cannot beat that lens in that range and price. I had the older version that regularly sells for about 500 used.

time2smile

ph03n1x wrote: »

I was looking around and I saw 70-300mm for pretty cheap. I was wondering if there was any real difference in the VR and non-VR version. Like does one have a faster AF than the other?

70-300 nonVr is screw drive
70-300 VR is HSM

I do have both the VR is much faster focus and is quiet, and the VR works great for those long shots by hand.