how much difference does 100mm make?

[thouts]

hey people.

stuck between a couple of lenses. a nikon 55-200mm or a sigma 70-300 mm. I feel like I would really like the extra zoom but I also feel like the nikon would be a better quality lens...has VR...is a Nikon...so is my camera, all that stuff. Don't want to fall for a gimmick. Could someone show me maybe with photos what the extra 100mm does. I'd really appreciate it! Also maybe some feedback from owners of these lenses would help.

 

[SimD]

Pictures won't do justice until you go out and try the lenses.

Cheers

 

[svndmvn]

It definitely depends on what you usually shoot. For me the VR is worth it. Your sensor is cropped anyway so your 200mm would be in reality 300mm, on a 35mm FullFrame sensor that is.

 

[Lovesong]

It definitely depends on what you usually shoot. For me the VR is worth it. Your sensor is cropped anyway so your 200mm would be in reality 300mm, on a 35mm FullFrame sensor that is.

That's a pretty bad comparison. While on an APS sensor the 200 will be 300, the 300 will be a 450.

Both lenses are OK for general photography. The VR in the Nikon would be better. On the telephoto end, there is a much smaller difference in the FLs when compared with the wide end. I would personally go for the Nikon.

 

[cube]

55 is a better starting point than 70 on crop. That's the key.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

The Nikon is a better lens. I'd rather use the plastic-fantastic Nikon than the Sigma and just crop for the extra 100mm.

 

[ChrisA]

hey people.

stuck between a couple of lenses. a nikon 55-200mm or a sigma 70-300 mm. I feel like I would really like the extra zoom but I also feel like the nikon would be a better quality lens...has VR...is a Nikon...so is my camera, all that stuff. Don't want to fall for a gimmick. Could someone show me maybe with photos what the extra 100mm does. I'd really appreciate it! Also maybe some feedback from owners of these lenses would help.

make the decision based on the subjects. A 300mm lens is for subjects that are quite far away and there is no practial way to walk up closer. Also the lens being f/5.6 is slow so you've have to have some good light and a relatively stationary subject.

the 200m is still a long lens and with VR you could hand hold the lens if you had to and use a slower shutter speed and still get good result.

I can't say which is best because I don't know what kinds of subjects you have in mind. Neither is an idealportrait lens for people shots and both are optimised for cost and some corners are cut v. the better f/2.8 zooms

 

[svndmvn]

That's a pretty bad comparison. While on an APS sensor the 200 will be 300, the 300 will be a 450.

I did mean to say if he bought the 200 it would be like having a 300mm on a full frame,is this wrong?
Anyway, 450mm on a full frame is kind of extreme, especially with no VR.

 

[djbahdow01]

I did mean to say if he bought the 200 it would be like having a 300mm on a full frame,is this wrong?
Anyway, 450mm on a full frame is kind of extreme, especially with no VR.

All depends what you are looking to accomplish. Figure sports shooters (like me) need the reach. You see many Nikon D3s with 400mm 2.8 lenses or longer. I mainly use my 300 2.8 on my D300.

To the OP, it all depends on what you are looking to photograph. Both lenses are ok. But the Nikon probably is a better lens. I have not used either so I do not know how I actually feel about them. Your best bet is to go to a camera store, ie Ritz, Wolf, or a local shop and try them out to see.