Steve'sDigicams

Dlatu1983 · May 6, 2006, 11:27 PM

I bought a D50 with the 18-55 kit lens a few months ago, to replace my Panasonic Lumix FZ20. I LOVE my D50, but obviously, I have nowhere near the reach I used to have with the 400 + mm on my Lumix. I currently have the option of getting GREAT deals on the 55-200 and the 70-300, but it looks like finances dictate I can get only one, at most. I can get each for under $150, brand new. Which is the better lens? Keep in mind that I'm an amateur, and I find the quality and performance on my 18-55 absolutely wonderful.

rjseeney · May 7, 2006, 9:16 AM

I would opt for the 55-200. It is lighter, focuses faster and gives you the complete focal range from 18-200 when matched with your 18-55. Optcially the two lenses are similiar, but the 55-200 probably wins on that count as well. The difference between 200mm and 300mm is very small (moving a little closer will make up for the difference), so unless you absolutely need the extra reach, the 55-200 would be my choice.

rey · May 7, 2006, 10:57 AM

Checkout, the other threads regarding this issue. This was discussed twice in the past week. I have the 70-300G and I can say that the difference between a 200 and a 300 is negligible. In fact, the difference between a 70 and a 100 is more obvious than 200 and 300. So I assume the effects are non-linear. Also, the 70-300G is soft beyond 200mm.

If you can, I afford it, I would suggest you get the Sigma 70-300 DG APO
MACRO. It has a better macro feature, and pictures posted here by its owners are pretty impressive.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

May 6, 2006, 11:27 PM	#1
Dlatu1983 Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 42	I bought a D50 with the 18-55 kit lens a few months ago, to replace my Panasonic Lumix FZ20. I LOVE my D50, but obviously, I have nowhere near the reach I used to have with the 400 + mm on my Lumix. I currently have the option of getting GREAT deals on the 55-200 and the 70-300, but it looks like finances dictate I can get only one, at most. I can get each for under $150, brand new. Which is the better lens? Keep in mind that I'm an amateur, and I find the quality and performance on my 18-55 absolutely wonderful.

May 7, 2006, 9:16 AM	#2
rjseeney Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky Posts: 2,398	I would opt for the 55-200. It is lighter, focuses faster and gives you the complete focal range from 18-200 when matched with your 18-55. Optcially the two lenses are similiar, but the 55-200 probably wins on that count as well. The difference between 200mm and 300mm is very small (moving a little closer will make up for the difference), so unless you absolutely need the extra reach, the 55-200 would be my choice.

May 7, 2006, 10:57 AM	#3
rey Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 949	Checkout, the other threads regarding this issue. This was discussed twice in the past week. I have the 70-300G and I can say that the difference between a 200 and a 300 is negligible. In fact, the difference between a 70 and a 100 is more obvious than 200 and 300. So I assume the effects are non-linear. Also, the 70-300G is soft beyond 200mm. If you can, I afford it, I would suggest you get the Sigma 70-300 DG APO MACRO. It has a better macro feature, and pictures posted here by its owners are pretty impressive.