|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 90
|
![]()
Hi, I am looking to buy a nikon d50 and for sure I am going to buy the 18-70mm AF-s. What I cannot decide on is what tele lense to buy. It would be great to get a 70-210, but those are quite hard to get ahold of and are more expensive. So I have been looking at the 55-200 versus the 70-300. Both are inexpensive and not really suited for high speed photography, but I am not looking to do that. From personal experience, what do people feel is a better lens over all? Thanks for your help
|
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
|
![]()
Unless you need the extra reach, I would opt for the 55-200. It's faster focusing, smaller and handles a little better. The 70-300 is soft over 200mm, and the difference between 200mm and 300mm is not really all that much.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 90
|
![]()
Thanks. Thats what I was leaning towards. I had heardthe 70-300 was quite soft over 200 too.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
|
![]()
If you don't mind going second hand, then take a look at the older but all metal 75/300 f4.5/5.6. I have had it for years and recently resurrected it for travelling since it is so light. It had very good revues and I have found it sharp across the range. A good one will set you back about $150.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 90
|
![]()
really. thyast about as much as a new 70/300, so thats not bad at all. i gotta check at the used stores around me for a good deal.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 90
|
![]()
really. thyast about as much as a new 70/300, so thats not bad at all. i gotta check at the used stores around me for a good deal.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|