nikon 55-200mm versus 70-300mm

DamoKen

Hi Guys, I started a thread recently asking about the value of digital slr kits on offer online http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=320312 . I've decided not to go the net route, due in no small part to some of the posts people made in that thread. Instead I've decided to go local, the net saving in the end if I bought online would have come to a max of €150 after shipping costs etc so for all the added hassle and risk didn't see the point.
Anyway I'm currently debating between Gunns and Camera Exchange on Georges St, both offer a fairly decent price on the D50 with the 18-55mm included, both about €800 which is very competitive for a retail shop. Anyway I want to also get a telephoto zooms for longer distance shots. Camera exchange offer the 55-200mm included for €1000, Gunn's the 70-300mm for just under €1000. I've read reports on both, the 18-55 plus 55-200 is meant to be a very good starter combination offering a wide range, but some reviews have suggested going for the 70-300 for the longer zoom range although the 70 - 300 reportedly gets soft at 300 mm. Has anyone any experience or views on either of these lenses? Even better if you have both and can give a comparision.
Cheers!

BTW this is not a Nikon Versus Canon thread, so please no suggestions to buy something else

CrowdedHouse

I wonder have you read Ken Rockwells reviews ?

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

Havent used either,still waiting on a D70s Kit

DamoKen

CrowdedHouse wrote:

I wonder have you read Ken Rockwells reviews ?

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300g.htm

Havent used either,still waiting on a D70s Kit

yeah I did thanks, thats where the reported "going soft at 300mm" in my first post comes from , however a little confused as though he says in his review of the 18-55mm (which he gives a decent review), that he'd go with the 70-300mm, he doesn't seem to give as good a review for the 70-300mm as he does the 18-55?

CrowdedHouse

I get the impression from the 55/200 review that he probably thinks the 70/300 is probably better up to 200 if you know what I mean.The 70/300 is better value (in the US anyway)

I have a 70-210 D from 35mm days which is very good but seem to have taken a price jump since he said they were good,also buying second hand on eBay etc can be a lottery

DamoKen

yeah I was thinking that myself, wondering though as to the purpose of the 200-300 then? I'll check it out anyway tomorrow, that is if Gunns have got the D50's in by then (they'll call this evening regardless of whether they arrive or not, great service!).

CrowdedHouse

The 70-300 might be Ok on a digital as it is a 'full size' lens,you wouldn't be using the whole element diameter of it.

DamoKen

CrowdedHouse wrote:

The 70-300 might be Ok on a digital as it is a 'full size' lens,you wouldn't be using the whole element diameter of it.

sorry I'm fairly new to photography and still getting to grips with a lot of teminology. I haven't heard that before, what exactly do you mean by a "full size" lens? Could you expand a bit more please?

CrowdedHouse

There's probably people on this forum able to explain it better than me but:-
The sensor that records the image in Nikon Digital SLR's is smaller than the size of a frame of 35mm film.The image produced by any lens is a circle,with a 35mm SLR, that circle is then cropped to the 24x36mm frame size, regardless of how big it was to begin with. With a digital SLR, the image circle is cropped even smaller, to the sensor size of I think about 15X23mm,with everything outside of those edges not being recorded. This means that your using the inner portion of the lens glass in a full size lens.

A full size Nikkor lens is one that's NOT marked DX,such as the 70-300mm,these can be also used on 35mm Nikons.

The DX lenses such as the 18-55 and 55-200 etc Can only be used on Nikon Digitals as they have been designed to take the smaller sensor into account and would only give a circular pic on a 35mm.
An advantage(or drawback in some cases) is that a full size lens gives a field of view 1.5 times its marked focal lenght - eg the 70 - 300 gives a view like a 105 - 450mm on a digital SLR

I've probably confused you even more !

DamoKen

CrowdedHouse wrote:

There's probably people on this forum able to explain it better than me but:-
The sensor that records the image in Nikon Digital SLR's is smaller than the size of a frame of 35mm film.The image produced by any lens is a circle,with a 35mm SLR, that circle is then cropped to the 24x36mm frame size, regardless of how big it was to begin with. With a digital SLR, the image circle is cropped even smaller, to the sensor size of I think about 15X23mm,with everything outside of those edges not being recorded. This means that your using the inner portion of the lens glass in a full size lens.

A full size Nikkor lens is one that's NOT marked DX,such as the 70-300mm,these can be also used on 35mm Nikons.

The DX lenses such as the 18-55 and 55-200 etc Can only be used on Nikon Digitals as they have been designed to take the smaller sensor into account and would only give a circular pic on a 35mm.
An advantage(or drawback in some cases) is that a full size lens gives a field of view 1.5 times its marked focal lenght - eg the 70 - 300 gives a view like a 105 - 450mm on a digital SLR

I've probably confused you even more !

no that's a good answer, thanks for that! I was looking into sensor sizes last weekend and the affects on the ISO settings, noise etc, so I at least know what part of the camera you're talking about . Need to think on what you said until I understand the relationship between the field of view and the sensor size, gives me a good jumping off spot for my homework this weekend too!, that is if I can find the time, got to work Sunday :mad: . Cheers for that mate, very helpful