Just purchased the D-5000. I currently have the Pentax K-20D along with several lenses and have decided to convert over to Nikon in the next year or so. The reasoning behind this is due to the uncertainty of Pentax's future in photography. It was either the D-5000 or the D-90 and since both my wife and myself will both be using this I felt the D-5000 would be simpler for her to use. I also plan on getting the 70-300 VR. My question is would the 70-300 be overkill due to the weight, which would most likely lead me to the purchase of the 55-200 VR. Thanks for your time, Dave

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You should look at both of them and decide for yourself. Nikon makes both lenses because some prefer one; some the other.

But in my opinion, the 70-300VR is the better option. Sure it's bigger, but it also gets you substantially more reach.

Randy

The weight difference is about 15 ounces. Unless every ounce is of a critical importance to you - for example, wilderness hiking/camping where weight is a trade-off - equipment versus supplies - you're giving up quite a bit to downgrade to a 55-200. The VR is better on the longer lens and 300mm is 300mm - sure you can crop it, but nothing beats optical zoom power. The handling and build are of a higher tier as well.

"Toodle-loo from Covey22!"

-Armando
Nikonians Team
Nikonians News - Fresh Everyday!

The Covey Blog!

My Plan:

Get out of the car.
Get closer to the subject.
Pick the right mid-tone this time.

See My Nikonians Gallery

David,

I have the 70-300VR and use it on my D80. The D5000 is a bit smaller than the D80 but I would not think it would be an overkill due to weight. My brother uses his 70-300VR on his D5000.

The 70-300VR is one of the best bargins that Nikon has short of pro glass. Check out this hand held shot taken with the 70-300VR.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/2682903875/sizes/l/in/set-72157603082791638/

This lens is very sharp and produces quality results.

Jerry Jaynes
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_jerry_jaynes/

>Just purchased the D-5000. I currently have the Pentax K-20D
>along with several lenses and have decided to convert over to
>Nikon in the next year or so. The reasoning behind this is due
>to the uncertainty of Pentax's future in photography. It was
>either the D-5000 or the D-90 and since both my wife and
>myself will both be using this I felt the D-5000 would be
>simpler for her to use. I also plan on getting the 70-300 VR.
>My question is would the 70-300 be overkill due to the weight,
>which would most likely lead me to the purchase of the 55-200
>VR. Thanks for your time, Dave
>
Some people knock the zooms. Anymore, the zooms (good ones) can hold their own with primes. I don't like being locked into one range when out in the field. Primes are fine for sports and such, but not so much on wildlife.

I also had the Pentax K20D & K10D before making the switch for the same reasons as you... Pentax not stepping up like Nikon and Canon are. I had several Pentax lenses, but my favorite for wildlife was the Tamron 18-250mm and it worked great! Most of my pictures here were taken with that lens:
http://1-4u-computer-graphics.com/
I now have the Nikon D5000 & D90 with three lenses, 18-55mm, 55-200mm & Sigma (BIGMA) 50-500mm w/SB800 flash. Next lens for me is the Tamron 18-270mm.

> would the 70-300 be overkill due to the weight, which would most likely lead me to the purchase of the 55-200 VR.

I may not be the most relevant opinion, since I'm willing to haul around some really heavy gear. But I rarely notice the weight of a 70-300 - the size is much more prominent. The total weight of the D5000 and 70-300 is significantly less than a lot of womens' purses, so unless your wife is very sensitive to this, I doubt that it would be an issue.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Hi David:

I'm familiar with all the lenses and cameras mentioned. IMHO, there is not much of an optical quality difference between the two lenses. In addition, I do not think that the 70-300 VR is an overkill for the D5K. I had the D40 + 70-300 VR, a combo that I used a lot. I did not find the size and weight to be that overpowering. However, it was tiring shooting with the 70-300. The effective focal length with a DX camera is 450mm. Just to stabilize the image, shooting handheld, and close to 300mm, wore me down, after shooting for several hours. I do not have the same problem with other lenses, like the 70-200 VR, for example.

I also have the 55-200 VR and the D5000. I find the combo to be excellent and easy to use. When I got the 70-200 VR, I sold the 70-300 VR and kept the 55-200 VR. The latter is an excellent lens that does not take a back-seat to the 70-300, imho, but it is 100mm shorter (150mm DX format.) The biggest difference is built. You have to be more careful with the 55-200.

One thing that I forgot to mention with the 70-300 VR mounted on a DX body, it is the wide end. The minimum focal length is an effective 105mm. Many times, you are going to use the lens in a Zoo or something similar. I was always backed up against a fence, when trying to shoot regular pictures of the place, without changing lenses. I just could not get back far enough and all the people that get in front of you. The 55-200, starts ~82mm in DX format - big difference.

Best regards,

Hektor

A Nikonian in Kemet

My Blog: Hektors Blog
My Photo Album: Hektors Photos