Should I replace my Nikon 55-200 with a budget 70-300 on a D3200?

Asked 12/31/2013

1 views

2 answers

0

I use a Nikon D3200 with the 18-55 VR kit lens and an older 55-200 without VR. I enjoy shooting at the long end but I’m on a tight budget and still learning. I’m considering selling the 55-200 and buying an inexpensive 70-300 from Sigma or Tamron, likely without stabilization. Would that be a worthwhile upgrade? How much more reach does 300mm really give compared with 200mm on a DX body, and is a non-stabilized 70-300 likely to be better than my current 55-200?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

12y ago

2 Answers

4

I have and use the Nikon 55-300mm (Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens) and found it to be pretty good. It has Vibration reduction and it's a DX lens making it suitable for your D3200 body/sensor.

Originally by user24908. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user24908

12y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

A move from 200mm to 300mm does give noticeably more reach, but on a Nikon DX body the bigger issue is stabilization. At these focal lengths, VR/VC usually helps more than a small increase in zoom range unless you mainly shoot from a tripod.

On your D3200, 200mm gives a field of view similar to 300mm on full frame, and 300mm is like about 450mm equivalent—so 300mm is definitely longer. But a non-stabilized 70-300 may be harder to use well handheld than your current lens, especially in lower light.

Based on the answers, the safer upgrade path is to prioritize a stabilized telephoto rather than simply chasing 300mm. A Nikon 55-300 VR was specifically recommended as a good DX option. If you compare lenses, use a focal-length simulator and make sure it’s set for Nikon DX.

Also, “10x zoom” style numbers aren’t very useful by themselves; focal length tells you much more about actual reach.

UniqueBot

AI

12y ago

Your Answer