Nikon AF-S 55-200 vs Tamron 70-300

Squidgy Black · 24-10-2010 12:02pm #1

I'm looking to pick up a telephoto lens for my d3000, and i thought i'd ask here for some advice first

i'm really looking for something as a second lense to my kit lense (18-55) for things like sports, and just other shots that i need a zoom for.

has anybody got any experience or opinions on the two?

thanks,
Stephen

Heebie · 24-10-2010 2:00pm

I have a Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6, and it's alright.. definitely good value for the money.
But.. I think it would come up short for sporting events where the light wasn't really good due to it's speed.

Comparing these two lenses in particular isn't easy, because the Nikon is only up to 200mm.

That being said.. the review I've read of this Nikon lens basically says, "Don't buy this, buy the 70-200VR lens instead" The VR is in an entirely different league. (I have the Tamron equivalent.. and I do use it a LOT more than my 70-300 Tamron... but it was 3x as much as the 70-300)
The reviewer seemed to feel that particular 55-200mm lens from Nikon is basically crap they made to keep their 2-lens kit pricing down.

The Tamron isn't a great lens, but it's a very usable lens overall.. and it's really good value. Sigma would make an equivalent lens as well.

You should check reviews online to see what others think of these lenses.

Does anyone reading this have the Nikon mentioned?

Thecageyone · 25-10-2010 12:11am

The 55-200 is supposed to be pretty good actually, the VR version can be got for pretty cheap brand new. I looked t them today in St. louis, $259 - which is peanuts really for a VR lens. They have the 55-300 VR for $399, which is around €270 - seems a steal!? Its better built than the 55-200 vr ... but all reviews point to the 70-300 vr, a better built, better quality all round lens. But about twice the price. Anyone got one of those 55-300vr models? It can't be too bad if you just want stable zoom now and then eh?

bbbbb · 25-10-2010 3:33pm

The Nikon 55-200mm VR comes up often enough on adverts.ie for about €150.

Thecageyone · 25-10-2010 5:49pm

That's not far off what it is for brand new over here. Trying to decide do i need the extra 100mm for the extra money.

Squidgy Black · 25-10-2010 7:09pm

I picked up the sigma equivalent earlier for 100 quid, not a bad lense at all.

Heebie · 25-10-2010 7:46pm

Hopefully you'll take lots of pictures with it and show them off to all your friends on boards.ie!

stetyrrell wrote: »

I picked up the sigma equivalent earlier for 100 quid, not a bad lense at all.

Thecageyone · 03-11-2010 5:42am

Picked up a 55-200mm vr in best buy, St. Louis today. $249, which is about €175. €249 in conns, saving of €74 right there

5 year warranty once I get ir registered within the next 10 days, and since we're due back here in a year, good deal all round, even if I have any trouble with it. I was tempted by the 55-300vr, but tbh, I really don't need 300mm, most of my shooting is done at the wider end, I just wanted to have a cheap, lightweight, reliable zoom.

Took a few testers earlier, night time, keeping the ISO down as much as possible, in the 400-640 region, with shutter speeds as slow as 1/5, I think I got some nice sharp hand-held shots. Just transferring them now to check over. But it's looking good for such a cheap lens.

Nikon AF-S 55-200 vs Tamron 70-300

Comments