Looking for a zoom lens for my Nikon D3000 – the question is do I go for Nikons own lens:
Nikon 55-200

or Sigmas offering:
Sigma 70-300

Obviously the Sigma wont have the VR that the Nikon has, but then the Sigma has more range. I’m a bit of a doofus when it comes to lenses. I guess what i want is to be able to zoom in for a greater distance and as I only have the 18-55 that came with the camera, I have no real frame of reference

Cheers

I have the 55-200 on my D40, for the money it’s a cracking lens, takes a superb photo, even at the 55 end it takes a much sharper photo than the kit lens.

Depends what you want to photograph really as to if you go for the 200 or 300, does the D3000 have image stabilisation in the body, a 300mm lens will be pretty hard to get a steady image without a tripod or some sort of VR.

We have one of those Sigmas and it’s really good. But the 55-200 will be more useful day to day. It’s the one you will probably use more.

BTW – you can get the Sigma for £99 – bargain!

As a guide I would say that the greater the range the greater the compromise. I haven’t looked at the links, but purely on range I would say the 55-200mm. Then maybe look at the weight and go for the heaviest.

I’ve not used either, but do have a Nikon 18-200 VR. Going from a non-VR lens previously I’ve been amazed at how it pretty much eliminates camera shake. VR all the way!
Any chance you could save up for an 18-200 VR and sell the 18-55?

Got to agree with bikewhisperer,save up for a 18-200 vr,its an amazing lens,and there is a vr2 version now so you may get a vr1 a bit cheaper.

There is a Nikn 70-300 with VR if the range is an issue for you.

I’ve got the Nikon 70-300 VR & it’s very good. Some kind of stabiliser really helps when using the zoom, especially in low light.

Out of the two you mention, I’d go for the 55-200 as the zoom range will be more useable, more of the time.

Boba Fatt – The sigma lens you linked to doesn’t have a built in motor, it takes it’s drive from the camera body. Sadly the D3000 doesn’t have a motor in the body, so the AF will not work.

I’d go for the 55-200, my wife has one, it’s light, fast focusing and sharp enough. you won’t really notice the lack of focal length (unles you are shooting wildlife or celebrities in private beach resorts from boats a mile offshore)

Do some AF have a motor and series of gears then to operate the AF or what?

Tamron 70-200 F2.8, bit expensive but very good.

Make sure you need the 300mm reach as it is not that much more Tele than a 200. You will defo need either plenty of light or a tripod for that much reach if your lens does not have VR (probably you will need VR even with plenty of light if you dont have steady hands).

The 70-300 VR from Nikon is very good also, has VR and the extra reach you are after. It is twice as expensive as the 55-200 though.

If you have to be restricted to the two you listed then I’d go for the 55-200 and if I need a bit extra reach I will just crop.

MOLGRIP: Yes, pretty much all new Nikon lenses and most Nikon mount third party lenses have motors in the lens. Lower end Nikon bodies (D40(x),D60,D3000,D5000,D3100) do not have AF motors so if your lens does not have one then you have to manual focus.

Weird. My lenses have supersonic wave motors, little piezo electric hairs or something that make like caterpillar legs.

Cogs and gears seems crude?

Cogs and gears seems crude?

Older Nikon lenses use a driving screw that is on the main camera body to drive the focus.

Newer ones have silent/sonic wave motors built into the lens.

Bear in mind that Nikon has been using F-mount since 1959!
SWM are a bit newer!