Originally posted by crewl1 I owned the 50-200 previously in both DA-L and WR versions.
Frankly I saw better IQ out of my DA 18-250 which has a lot going against it as a superzoom.
The DA 55-300 has better IQ than all three lenses above.
The only reason I don't own a DA 55-300 any longer is I have duplication at that focal length, so I kept the cheapest and what I felt was most versatile in the zooms and that was the Tamron 70-300 which you are no longer considering.
The 50-200 is not bad, but the 55-300 makes more sense if you can afford it. It depends on the type of shooting you do or plan to get into. 300mm is at the start of a wildlife focal length if you think you might ever want to try that.
When you say you saw better IQ, do you mean like blatantly obvious differences in IQ or do you mean when you zoom in during the post process?
Honestly, this is a birthday present that my boyfriend is trying to get me (he's even more lost on this whole lens buying thing than I am, haha.) He's willing to spend the money on the lens but I'm not exactly that comfortable letting him spend almost $400 just for my birthday. On the other hand, I don't want to get a used one and have it die on me 3 months later, I would feel so bad for wasting his money. ): Which is why I have now gone from seriously considering 55-300mm to 50-200mm.
I don't plan on doing anything too crazy in photography, just simple shots when I go out and enjoy nature once in awhile. Like trips to the Golden Gate Park or Japanese Tea Gardens, museums, aquariums, cars, people, wildlife but it doesn't have to be pro like chasing after seagulls. Sunsets, the cityscape at night. If I do seriously go into wildlife photography (which isn't impossible), I expect it to be a good 5-10 years from now considering how busy I am with school work ):
Aside from the zoom, the sharpness and contrast of colors BEFORE editing is also important for me. I think that's as far as my knowledge of photography goes );