i already have the 55-200MM VR lens. i only had it for 2 month. it was on my camera and it fell 3 feet off my desk. the camera is OK but the lens ain't. i sent it to Nikon and they said it would cost $165 to fix. i said wow i only paid $249 for it. now this is what i like to know. the camera shop i go to has a new tamron 70-300MM macro lens with AF that will work on my D40. i would like to know if this lens is as good or better as the 55-200mm lens. i don't care if it don't have VR. plus i would like the extra reach and macro
your input on these lenses
Posted: May 4, 2008 - 1:22pm
Re: your input on these lenses
Posted: May 21, 2008 - 2:08pm
wow 2 weeks and nothing. well i went and got the tamron. thanks any ways.
Re: your input on these lenses
Posted: May 23, 2008 - 4:22am
Problem is that you're asking a question comparing two specific lenses that requires the person responding to have used them both, on a forum that's not heavily participated in. Had I caught your question initially I would have suggest to always get the manufacturer's lenses. But that's my personal opinion from using Nikon for over 35 years.
For some additional reading about about Nikon lenses, Thom Hogan just updated his web site with an article about what he recommends in Nikon:
http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm
Quote:
wow 2 weeks and nothing. well i went and got the tamron. thanks any ways.
![]()
| Cameras Other | Techniques Site Features | Blogs Archived Blogs Refreshers | More Articles | Columns eCommerce | News Resources |


.jpg)

.jpg)
