photo923 said:
Tokina makes a good "macro" screw in and a .45 wide angle that works very well if you don't need a dedicated macro. I've used one for years to my satisfaction. I think you could pick one up on EBay for around $40.

Photo923, which Tokina macro lens are you referring to here? Just curious... (and making sure it works on D5000s...)

All the important variables have pretty much been covered, but i'll add my bit. I bought my camera with the 18-55 and the 55-200. I also bought a 70-300 which i returned.

the Nikon 70-300 is significantly larger and heavier than the 55-200, this is very noticeable on a small camera. The image quality of the 70-300 is better, but with 2 years of hindsight, i agree with my decision: i would have used my 70-300 MUCH less than i currently use my 55-200, as a consequence of its larger size. Your experience may vary.

VR is VERY important in my experience. go to your camera store and grab a 55-200, go to 200 and half-press the shutter. The VR will turn on and you will be pretty shocked at how much more stable the image is.

Also, its essential whenever you do not have enough light, which is usually pretty often.

Tokina makes a good "macro" screw in and a .45 wide angle that works very well if you don't need a dedicated macro. I've used one for years to my satisfaction. I think you could pick one up on EBay for around $40.

benalexe for the record do not buy any lens that has the plastic on the connector in back of the lens. the weather effects the lens and mine cut of when I go into live view with that lens.

I have the sigma 70-300 APO. At the time I bought it (before either 55-200 or 70-300 VR were available), I wasn't sure I was interested in telephoto so the sigma seemed to be the best inexpensive choice (reportedly better than the old & cheap nikon 70-300mm non-VR). My experience to date:
* Sharp enough from 70-200
* Not at all sharp as you approach 300mm (in fact I no longer use it above 200mm, much better just to crop afterwards)
* Contrast is not good, but can be corrected in post-processing to some extent (though I prefer to avoid over processing my images)
* Macro feature is not that great, it has allowed me to capture some ok close-ups, but in general I think I'd be better served by a better telephoto + extension tube or dedicated macro

So, in my opinion if you don't want to spend a lot of money or don't know if telephoto will be your thing, get the 55-200. Otherwise if you have the cash get the 70-300 VR, it is supposed to be very good.

BTW: I'm now looking to offload the Sigma and upgrade to a better telephoto.... my main gripes being based on the poor image quality at the longer end and lack of VR (and/or large aperture) for dimmer lighting conditions.

benalexe - macro lens (which is everything with at least 1:1 factor) gonna cost You around $870 (nikon 105 vr) so I guess that nikon 55-200 vr is a way better solution for You as the price is around $220

Thank you for your post. I have the one that came with the camera the 18-55 lens. I want to take general photos everything from the kids playing sports to general photos of kids family etc. On the Marco lens, what is the cost of a macro lens?

heartyfisher - 80-400vr will not work with his/hers d5000, but indeed benalexe tell us more about You and Your budget.

Hello Benalexe,

Photography is so much fun.. (but also expensive). You have not mentioned what lenses you currently have. Buying a new lens needs to be considered as getting the next component of a total system. So please tell us what you currently have. and Why you think you need the reach to 300mm.

How did you test the 70-300 sigma? did you look at the results in the shop on the camera's lcd back? if you did that then that is not a good test to see if it was blurry. You need to take your camera into the shop and take a few photos in a range of shutter speeds and apertures. then go home to look at them on your PC.

Do you have a Good Tripod. Before VR every one used a tripod with those long lenses. With good technique you can get great pictures. The APO version of the Sigma lens is the newer and better version get that one if you are going to get the Sigma. However, VR does expand the usability of the lens by 5-30% depending on your style of photography.

The macro capability of 1:2 with the sigma is nice. You don't need VR for macro. a dedicated macro lens will get you down to 1:1 but having a 1:2 capability is nice.

Which lens you should get depends a lot on what you intend to be taking with the lens and in what conditions you think you will be using your gear (eg. is it for Nature/ motorsport / fashion? Holiday, general?) How long you intend to be keeping that lens. Do you think you will be upgrading that lens in the future eg upgrade to a 80-400VR?

Wow the 70-300 is over $500 vs the sigma which is under $200

I was just stating a general and measured rule and I am not saying it is impossible to make a decent shot if you break one, rules are here to be broken in my opinion. It is all about how lucky you are.
But according to survey made by comparing and actually measuring results of pictures taken at 10 feet using normal lens from tripod and by students shooting from hand in standing position without any support there are measurable loss of sharpness up to 1/250sec shutter speed. Normal is around 50mm for full frame and around 35mm for DX, and of course blur depends on distance of a subject and on focal length. VR just gives you a better chance to make a sharper shot.

In my honest opinion I also think that you should get the Nikkor 70-300 VR.

I also have one and enjoy it, I use it for airplane spotting. It is a bit soft at 300mm but you always have the option to sharpen your photo on your computer.

Good luck !

@mb - twice the focal length? I handhold my 300mm at 1/150 with sharp results and no VR.

Proof: click for full size, look at the leg the bird is standing on. Shot at 1/90 sec on my 300mm f/4.5 EDIF AI-S handheld

I certainly won't always get sharp results at 1/90, but at half the focal length I'd say I'm consistently good.

Get the Nikon. VR is very handy in telephoto lenses.

Actually you would want VR if exposure speed is lower than twice of focal length (for 200mm lens you should not use lower then 1/400s from hand) so saying you don’t need VR means that you should shoot only on the brightest days during summer unless you always use tripod. You can not judge that just from an image on a camera LCD screen but please trust me on this one.
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO non APO version is one of the worst lenses on the market really, and APO 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO is a little better, but motor built in these two is really slow and inaccurate and 55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX NIKKOR is better not only mechanically but is sharper also (thanks to aspherical lens elements).
Sigma metal mount on those lenses is low quality and imprecise so I would strongly advice against them no matter how cheep they are.

Also forgot to mention that the previous post regarding the VR is absolutely correct. Beyond 200mm you will difinately need the VR. The Nikon AF- S VR 70-300mm lens is a good lens, but it is a variable aperture lens and not a fixed aperture f/2.8 lens therefore I think the VR is a must.

I must agree with some of the other posts here, you should purchase the Nikon AF- S VR 70-300mm lens. I would not purchase any third party lens, not that they are bad they are just different. Each lens manufacturer designs there lenses to there own specifications. One example is the lens tenting, this can vary and your pictures will also vary in tent based on which lens you use.

You more than likely will love digital photography and want to upgrade your camera at some point in time. With this said the Nikon AF- S VR 70-300mm lens is a relatively new lens that will work on the D5000 DX body and any newer DX bodies as well as a FX full frame body. There is much speculation and debate over the future of DX vs. FX, but in any event you would be prepared for either.

Again, I think that in a few years you will be much happier with the Nikon AF- S VR 70-300mm lens. If you find that you want this lens in the future, it will be pretty easy to sell it used on E-Bay or Craig's List for not much less than what you have paid for it.

Good luck!

You want the VR because if you shutter speed is slower than your focal length (ex: 1/125 sec @ 200mm), you can almost always expect to see some blur in the photo's (unless you love to lug around your tripod). Don't bother with the standard 55-200mm nikon b/c you can get the VR version for just a little more money. The VR version also has sharper optics.

As far as speed goes. The Nikon lenses are going to focus faster, and more quietly.

APO is the same thing as ED (Low Dispersion glass). A Sigma APO lens is going to be sharper than the same non APO Sigma lens. It's like Nikon's older more basic 70-300mm lenses. The ED version has far superior glass over the non ED version.

I am leaning toward the 70 300 sigma. Here is why... When I tried it in the store I thought the range was great. The guy told me I really don't need the VR function on it. I took a few photos and they were not blury?

Why would I need the VR then?

Also in terms of speed any idea how the two compare?

What is APO?

Get the 55-200mm VR, don't spend more than $250 for it, the VR version also has better optics. If you want more reach, get the Sigma 70-300mm APO (don't bother with a non APO version). The next step from there is the 70-300mm VR Nikon lens.

if You are new to photography, than You need VR. I will go with matstar suggestion 70-300 vr is much better, if You don't have the fundings than 55-200 will do the work, plastic "connector" in the bag shouldn't be a problem for You

I have always stuck with Nikkor lenses for ultimate quality and compatibility. Sure, it costs a bit more, but I really want the peace of mind that the lens that I have is the best lens for the intended purpose. I have the 55-200 VR and it is very good. If you can afford double, then consider the Nikkor 70-300 VR. What lenses do you have already??

I have a D5000 and interested in purchasing a zoom lens. (I am new at this stuff) Anyway I went to a camera store today and was going to consider getting the 55-200 Nikon lens. The guy at the store told me I should get a SIGMA 70-300 lens It has a macro setting built in. He also said that the sigma has a metal connector in back of the lens where the NIKON has plastic. The lens he showed me was not VR and he said I do not really need it. The price he qoted me was $220. What do you guys think?