Les Jones

55-200 mm VR is a fantastic lens. I got mine a couple weeks back and I was surprised at the quality in a lens from Nikon for so little cash. I've been shooting mine almost wide open with VR and it seperates the subject with razor sharpness and the out of focus blur is killer. I've been shooting Nikons for close to thirty years and IMO the 55-200 is great lens for an everyday piece of glass.

I voted for the 70-300mm because you need it for shots like this:

http://flickr.com/photos/justlisa/2274988240/

Besides, bigger is always better, isn't it? heh.

Having a wife that is trying to get into the pro scene, I would definitely go for the larger lens. You may want to look at Tamron and Sigma. Tamron has some nice lenses with a good price. You will find the optics of the tamron to be as good or better than some of the Nikon or Canon name brands. I think we paid $300.00 for a 70-300 for the Canon 20D.

Clearly your lens lust escalation will never end until you get one of these.

Although, size and weight seem to be considerations, so at 17.5" and 11.2 lbs. it might be an issue.

But seriously, you can get some pretty good shots at 200mm with cropping. Longer is always better, though. Tough call. I have the older "G" version of the 300, and it does a pretty good job for the money.

(I told you to get the 18-200 vr, then you would only need one lens for a while! I have one, and it's great.)

Lisa: Nice shot. For wildlife the 300 sure would be nice.

Randy: Funnily enough I just ran into a buddy of mine in the photography class and asked him about lenses. He's totally in love with his 18-200 VR and is thinking of selling me his 55-200 VR. So now that's three people I know who love the 18-200 VR. 'Course, it's $600+, so that's a factor. Decisions, decisions.

I have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF which ran me about $1600, but that's primarily for the fixed 2.8. I used to shoot weddings (business tanked because everyone had DSLRs) and when sitting in the back of a dark cathedral and not able to use flash, I needed that extra light.

So, I'm not here to tell you which lens to go with, but rather to brag that my aperture is bigger than yours. Thhhhpt!

Yeah, after getting that 50mm prime lens I see the appeal of big apertures. The guy who taught my photography class shoots weddings for a living, and he explained the advantages of a big aperture and a constant aperture for shooting wedding pics. Too bad for me that all of the big aperture lenses except the 50 are so freakin' expensive (and heavy if they're telephoto zooms).

If my kids get into indoor sports later on I might be able to justify something like that. I'm told that 85mm or so primes do pretty well for high school basketball games with a little cropping, and they aren't too expensive or too bulky.

And you're right, everybody is getting into wedding photography. Half of my class of 30 people was there to get into the biz. The instructor said he was teaching to supplant his income because there's so much competition these days.

I vote for the longer lens. You will need the extra mm for wildlife. I use Canon and rarely use the intermediate range 70-200mm altho I have Canon's flagship lens 70-200mm f2.8L (really a sports lens). It seems it's either wide angle for landscape or pretty much maxing out the 100-400mm telephoto for wildlife, usually very close to or at 400mm. I think one of the big pros, maybe Rockwell, also found limited use for the mid-range focal length.

For wildlife I think you're right that 300's the way to go. And not a bad price as telephotos go.

I'm going to see my buddy this Thursday. If he offers me a deal on his 55-200 I'll probably go that way for now. Otherwise I'll get the 70-300. I've found a place that has it for $379 with free shipping.

The 18-200 seems like a perfect all-around lens for family pictures and vacations, but it's a bit pricey right now. I'll reconsider it after it goes through a round or two of price drops.

was goig to suggest the 18-200 as well. Yes, it is pricy; but it's also the best piece of glass Nikon has ever made for DX cameras. Once you put it on, you'll almost never take it off.

Other than that, the new 70-300VR is on my wish list (as is the 18-200), the 55-200 isn't; but that may be because I've already got an 18-135.

Oh and you may not think you need it right now, but eventually, you're going to want the 14-24 or something similar.

Oh and I presume you've red ROckwells review on the 70-300, but here it is for those who haven't:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

An important thing to note that has changed since Rockwells review; the price has dropped significantly. I think that would have changed his recommendation from "maybe" to "yes".

He's also got a comparison of the 18-200 and the 55-200:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/versus-55-200mm.htm

Ooops, I said 14-24, should have been 12-24.

Oh and I lied, the 55-200 IS on my wish list; but I put it there just in case whoever was buying me a gift couldn't afford the 70-300 or 18-200.

Agreed on all counts. Now that the 70-300 is under $400 most of Rockwell's objections don't apply any more. From reading his article on portrait lenses he's pretty bullish on the 70-300 for portrait work.

Hi Les, great blog -- and thanks for the link to Appalachian Treks! I appreciate it! I bought the 70-300 vr and have been very pleased with its performance. It hunts in low light, but other than that, it's been a great lens. Having said that, I think I'd agree with the others that have recommended the 18-200 - it's an amazing lens and would probably never leave your camera. Best wishes...