Buying nikkor lens for d3100?

I have a d3100. Quite confuse which one to buy. Choosing between 18-200vr and 55-300vr. Which one should i buy for my d3100. I only have one lens and it's the 18-55. I want to buy another lens and I'm choosing between those two. Which one is sharper or faster to focus. Or overall which one is better. Which one do you recommend?

It usually comes back to cost for most of us, but putting that aside the 18-200vr is a wide ranging lenses and could have issues unless it is in the 500-600 GBP range.
the 55 - 300 is a macro lenses which i bought as it covers a bit further when photography objects some distance away.

I personally have been wanting the 18-200 for quite sometime, so i'm biased. But, It seems as though it depends on your shooting style. The 18-200 is more of a portrait lens for someone who is willing to move themselves, tripod included at times, and drops the back out of focus amazingly. The 55-300 has a shallower Depth of Field range and would be great for field work like wildlife and such, when you want to avoid disturbances. If, however, you're fond of having everything in focus, the 18-200 is a better lens, and it preserves the distance between subjects and things within thee photo better. Not to mention, with such a wide angle you can get so much more in frame, but, as you've said, your current lens encompasses these mm. When shooting at the same MM and aperture with both lenses, your current and the 18-200, and you compare, you will see a difference in depth of field, your current lens having more in focus. Hope this helps.

Unless you specifically want the extra reach of the 55-300mm lens, go for the 18-200mm. Its image quality is good and it's very convenient not to have to change lenses so often.

In terms of sharpness you probably won't see much of a difference between them.

@DR + Mrs Bears face:
The 55-300mm is NOT a macro lens, it's a telephoto lens.

@lilyo:
"When shooting at the same MM and aperture with both lenses, your current and the 18-200, and you compare, you will see a difference in depth of field, your current lens having more in focus."

This is incorrect. At equal focal length, aperture and subject distance all lenses will produce the same depth of field (when used on the same camera).

The most shallow depth of field of both lenses, when used at the same focal length and subject distance and at maximum aperture, will be approximately the same. One hits the f/5.6 maximum aperture at 300mm but it already starts out at f/4.5 at 55mm, the other hits f/5.6 at 200mm but starts out af f/3.5 at 18mm. The 55-300mm lens probably will have something like a f/5.2 maximum aperture at 200mm then - the difference in DoF is negligible. And of course one can simply step down either lens if one wants a wider depth of field.

I wouldn't call the 18-200 a portrait lens any more than the 55-300mm one, and it's a borderline case even then - the focal length is ok, but that's only half of the story. For portraits i'd feel seriously limited by the high maximum aperture of either lens.

If you're willing to spend the money on the 18-200 you may as well get the AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G VR IF-ED, this lens is built to the same standard as the 18-200 except the 70-300mm lens is an easier lens to make well. As a result the 70-300mm lens behaves more predictably than the 18-200. Mind though this only applies to the IF-ED version of the lens.

The 18-200mm lens makes a good "walking around" lens since it covers a wide angle at 18mm and is a medium telephoto at 200mm. This allows you to do a lot of shooting of various scenes without having to change lenses.

Like your current 18-55mm lens, both the lenses you reference are fairly slow variable aperture lenses which are poorly suited for indoor photography without using the flash. Outdoors on a sunny day they are all capable lenses.

If price were no object then the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 lens would be the absolute best choice but at $2, 195.00 it really breaks most budgets.

My suggestion would be the 18-200mm lens.