55-200 vs. 70-300

[danz]

Hi Everybody,

I'm new to photoradar and need your opinion in the following question.
I own a Nikon D60 DSLR with a Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR lens. Now the time has come to upgrade my kit
I've tightened the number of the possible lenses to two these are the following:

http://lensbuyersguide.com/en/lens/s...-ED_AF-S_DX_VR
http://lensbuyersguide.com/en/lens/s...6_APO_DG_MACRO

I'm not sure which one I should buy. The Nikkor has a VR system but the Sigma has a longer focal length.
Please tell me you opinion, the pros and cons and help me to decide the question.
Thanks,

danz

[chris-p]

Hi Danz, welcome to the forum

This is a tough decision actually becuase the lack of a VR (or OS in Sigma-speak) is a bit of a pain. I don't know what your budget is but, if you can stretch to it, Sigma do a stabilisted 70-300 (link) which is about £300 and Nikon do their 70-300mm VR which is a bit over £400 (link). If your budget won't stretch to either of those lenses then it really comes down to what you want to shoot.

The rule of thumb for long lenses and sharp shots (without stabilisation) is that the shutter speed needs to be the reciprocal of the focal length. Put another way, if you shoot at 200mm you need to try to get a shutter speed of at least 1/200. 300mm = 1/300 etc.
So, if you're likely to be shooting outdoors in good light when you can get nice fast shutter speeds the lack of stabilisation isn't a killer, and the extra 100mm is often quite useful.

Don't forget though, you can always practice the way you hold the camera to help keep the lens still and increase the number of sharp shots you can get...

[ianpinion]

Using a telephoto lens without any image stabiliser is an art, because the greater the focal length you're shooting at the more prone to camera shake the image gets. So if you cannot afford a lens with either Nikon's VR or Sigma's OS then you'd be better off using a tripod/monopod and a remote release when using this lens.

[danz]

Hey thank you both for the reply.
chris-p, your comment was quite useful for me thanks again for the wise words
Unfortunately my budget won't stretch as much to buy the stabilized 70-300 Nikon or Sigma. I know buying either of them would be the best decision but I can not afford it. That's why I have to choose between the two lenses mentioned in the topic opening post.
By the way I'm tending to buy the Sigma because of the greater focal length my only doubt is the lack of the image stabilizer. In the 80% of the cases I would like to use the lens outdoors but I would like to shoot fine pics in case of e.g. cloudy weather as well.
What would you say what is the focal length at which one can shoot sharp pics from hand in average weather? And do you think that the -100 mm of focal length is worth for the image stabilization if I want a universal telephoto lens?
Thanks again for your posts,

danz

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by danz

What would you say what is the focal length at which one can shoot sharp pics from hand in average weather?

Kind of impossible to say really. It doesn't really work like that - you just need a fast shutter speed and thats it. All I would say is increase the ISO if you need to and keep the shutter speed up. And just practice using it.

Originally Posted by danz

And do you think that the -100 mm of focal length is worth for the image stabilization if I want a universal telephoto lens?

It's what I'd go for if that helps. Dunno about Ian - although his camera is IS in the body so he wins anyway!!

[ianpinion]

Ah but Chris, my other camera doesn't have any IS at all! Even shooting at 180mm handheld can be tricky if the light conditions are challenging, hence why I get on better with a tripod and remote shutter release.

I'll be honest and say if try to work to the formula that my shutterspeed should be no less than 1.5x the focal length I'm shooting at, to elliminate any camera shake. I know this adds a little bit of extra leeway just in case, but I think it's worth it.

[matt wilson]

if it was me I would go for the VR Nikon.My reasoning is that sharpness is crucial.Put that lens on a D60 and you will be able to crop the image .

A blurred image or one where you have had to up the ISO to get a decent pic with consequent noise is no fun .You would be fine in good light but would otherwise get frustrated as light drops.

[danz]

Probably the VR is the better choice as you all suggest.
I've once shot with a Tamron 70-300 lens without auto focus and image stabilization for about two weeks (mainly outdoors in quite good light) and I had to delete a couple of photos because of the blur. I thought the cause of this is the lack of auto focus. That's why the Sigma came in sight by searching the for me optimal telephoto lens.
The best would be if I could test each of them for some days... it would make the decision much easier

[chris-p]

Of course, it depends on the type of blur. If it's movement in the subject causing blur, VR systems don't do anything to help that.

Personally, I'd save up and go for the Nikon 70-300 VR (which is, in fact, exactly what I did).

[greenwing]

If you go for a Sigma 70-300, make sure that you get one with the built-in motor. At least 4 versions of the lens (APO, non-APO, with & without motor) have been available recently and there will certainly still be stock of the unmotorised versions in some dealers.