Buy the 55-200VR. ~$230! it's almost like stealing.... the 70-300VR is $750. The difference between 200 and 300 is not that significant. In most cases you can crop down to that w/o losing any print quality. The saved money will buy you the prime lens and then some.....

Correction...70-300 is $500. Still would go w/ the 55-200..

TimM71 wrote:.

Buy the 55-200VR. ~$230! it's almost like stealing.... the70-300VR is $750. The difference between 200 and 300 is not thatsignificant. In most cases you can crop down to that w/o losing anyprint quality..

If you can crop down to 300mm without loss of IQ, can't you do the same for the 70-300mm and have 400mm?.

*****************************************Packy..

Of course... for $250 more. If you need the reach it might be worth it, but I suspect most people don't..

Packy wrote:.

TimM71 wrote:.

Buy the 55-200VR. ~$230! it's almost like stealing.... the70-300VR is $750. The difference between 200 and 300 is not thatsignificant. In most cases you can crop down to that w/o losing anyprint quality..

If you can crop down to 300mm without loss of IQ, can't you do thesame for the 70-300mm and have 400mm?.

*****************************************Packy..

I just bought the 70-300VR from wolf camera for $529.99 and they give you 30 days if something is wrong to replace it...

Thanks guys!!.

I'm leaning toward 55-200mm VR...i also want an AF portrait lens on my nikon d40. I was torn between the sigma 30 1.4 and sigma 50-150 2.8...hopefully I can cough up an extra hundred bucks for t he 50-150 as my portrait lens...

I would not reccomend the 30mm 1.4 as a portrait lens. It's a great lens, but at 30mm you'd have to be closer to the person than a good portrait lens would.You'll wind up with big noses and ears and such for a headshot..

I'd highly reccomend the 50-150 instead if portraits are your concern.(or anything of longer focal length really)'Be right, fearless, faithfull, and true to others...'T.S. Elliott..