55-200 or 70-300??

[ajwomic]

I currently have a d90 with a 18-105 and a 33mm 1.8. I would like a longer zoom for sports and plays/recitals, etc. I had at first assumed I wanted the 55-200, but in looking also saw the 70-300s. I would not be opposed to a sigma or Tamron either. I do like sharp photos and will need vr or is so the shake does not kill me. I read somewhere that the extra 100 does not seem like much. does anyone have both? Which do you prefer? I have about $300 to spend, but may have more after Christmas. Any advice would be great!:)
Alicia

[DVC Mike]

I'd recommend the 70-300 VR lens, but that's about $500.

Don't forget the 55-300 instead of the 55-200.

[WeLoveNemo]

I have the D90 and same lens collection that you have. I also have an older 70-300mm that was part of my old D50 kit. That does not have the VR and it shows.

I have been looking at the 55-300mm VR/Dx as an after Christmas treat for myself. It has come down in price just in the last couple of months.

[ajwomic]

I did not know about the 55-300 until I read this. It has really good reviews and is a good price. What would be any benefit to the 70-300 over this one? Seems like with about the same range and cheaper price, and both with metal mounts, it would be a good deal. Anyone have the 55-300?
Alicia

[DVC Mike]

I did not know about the 55-300 until I read this. It has really good reviews and is a good price. What would be any benefit to the 70-300 over this one? Seems like with about the same range and cheaper price, and both with metal mounts, it would be a good deal. Anyone have the 55-300?
Alicia

The 70-300 VR has faster autofocusing than the slow 55-300, so I'd get that if you're taking action shots. It also has a slightly better build.