# 70-300 nikon, 55-200 nikon or 70-300 sigma?



## parrisgg (Aug 22, 2011)

Well guys, I am in a dilemma.  I only have a d3000, i'm a college student and I am on a budget.  I can say that I only use my DSLR for wildlife photos, otherwise I use my G12.  I'm stuck on a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 (not APO), a nikkor 70-300 4-5.6, or a nikkor 55-200 VR 4-5.6.  I know that the sigma is $170, the nikkor 70-300 is $150 and the 55-200 nikkor VR is $230.  I'm stuck on the issue because the sigma has macro but I am quite sure that it isn't true macro, also would 55-200 even be viable for my use of it?  Anyway, I will always be shooting in high light situations so low light is not an issue for me.  What do you guys think? I am open to criticism and all opinions but please don't say I need a new camera, classes are expensive!  Anyway, thanks for your time!


----------



## KmH (Aug 22, 2011)

The Nikon AF 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens has poor quality optics, and doesn't have an auto focus motor in it so you would have to focus manually when it's mounted on your D3000, which is why it only costs $150. The AF-S 55-200 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR has much better optics, an auto focus motor and VR, but 100 mm less reach.

Nikon makes the much better, which is why it costs more, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

The Sigma, not being a APO lens, also has low quality optics.

Being a college student, how much a month do you spend on entertainment, eating out, and things like strong drink?


----------



## Overread (Aug 22, 2011)

*moving thread to equipment section*


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 22, 2011)

I did not see this thread in the Equipment section, so I am responding to this here ( not sure how it works when you move threads if they are still showing up here ). How about the new Tamron 70-300 VC? I have heard its pretty good for its price.


----------



## Overread (Aug 22, 2011)

Only one thread Goonies, its just that I post and then move, but your post appears as normal in the thread after moving


----------



## parrisgg (Aug 22, 2011)

Well to be honest, I don't spend much money on food or entertainment. I only pay for my bills and I usually just spend the rest on photography, well now at least.  Anyway, knowing that unless you buy the VR or the APO lens, it makes me not even want to waste the 150.  Do you think it would be a good idea just to save up for the APO 70-300 Sigma? I mean, I would like to get the VR 70-300 from Nikon but that is just too much for my budget as of now.


----------



## parrisgg (Aug 22, 2011)

KmH said:


> The Nikon AF 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens has poor quality optics, and doesn't have an auto focus motor in it so you would have to focus manually when it's mounted on your D3000, which is why it only costs $150. The AF-S 55-200 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR has much better optics, an auto focus motor and VR, but 100 mm less reach.
> 
> Nikon makes the much better, which is why it costs more, Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
> 
> ...


Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## orb9220 (Aug 22, 2011)

Yep for Best Bang for the Buck love my 55-200vr and under $200 new for VR version. Light,compact and less obtrusive for walk about but a tad short for sports & wildlife tho I have gotten by with only occasional need for longer. My 70-300vr is of course more expensive as an option the 55-300vr is probably the most coverage for least amount in cost.

My shots by lens collections.
As you can see can do wildlife,woods,events even with the 55-200vr just need to do more cropping when needed. But does cover about 80%-90% of most of my shooting needs.

And have chose my 55-200vr as my main walkabout lens for daily jaunts. Tho if heading out to events,sports or wildlife will take the 70-300vr. Picked my 55-200vr used for $130 and the 70-300vr for $325. Tho would consider the newer 55-300vr at a lower price new.

I wouldn't even touch the cheaper Tamron longer zooms as slowest AF of all the lens makers. Even tho my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an outstanding general range zoom. And it is even a tad slow to AF.
And would choose Sigma over Tamron for longer zooms with Nikon being first choice when possible.
.


----------



## Ant (Aug 23, 2011)

I've used quite a few different 300mm lenses. The Sigma 70-300mm APO is actually pretty decent for the price. However, unless they've brought out a new version which I'm unaware of, then it won't autofocus with your camera. You need a lens with an in-built focus motor, which infortunately knocks up the price.

Your best options are probably: The Nikon 55-200, or the Nikon 55-300. 

The Nikon 70-300mm VR is the best, but looks to be out of your price range, unless you can get a used version. Tamron also make a 70-300mm VC (VR) which, by all accounts, is at least as good as the Nikon 70-300mm VR but costs a bit less.


----------

