How far the 55-200mm VR Nikkor can Reach me?

If I'm shooting wildlife, how handy may the 200mm end come?
How far can I go away from the "focus" subject?
300 feet? Or more? Or less?

using a Nikkor 70-300mm's 300mm end zoom is going to help us more, or that 55-200mm VR is goos enough for wildlife shoots?
But I just want to know the "distance", and I want to fill the frame - with that 200mm end of the telephoto

besides Nikkor 55-200mm VR is one-third of the 70-300mm VR's price

Added (1). Let's say, it's a D90 we're using
and the animal is
(i) a Bengal Tiger
(ii) an elephant
(ii) a squirrel:-)

how does this differ, then?
from how far away could we focus at them?

The magnification you are talking about would depend on the size of the subject. A close up of a flower might need a distance of 5 feet where as for an elephant you might need 150 feet.
300mm lens would definitely be better, but for its price.

Don't. With wild wildlife you want every mm of reach you can get. A 70-300 is minimum, a 150-500 would be a lot better.

You can wait a bit and see what the price of the new 55-300 will be

This depends on:
-your camera (a full frame camera and a crop sensor will not give you the same results)
-the size of the subject.

If you have a crop sensor you will have to multiply the 200mm by 1.5, 1.6 or 1.7 giving you around 300mm. This is rather good for beginner wild life photography.

To calculate magnification. First calculate the mm on a crop factor if this is you case and then proceed as indicated on Wikipedia.

You may want to take a look at the new 55-300 mm VR lens

http://www.nikonusa.com/...ED-VR.html

It falls between the cost of the 70-300 mm and 55-200 mm lenses.

In the years I have shot wildlife, I have used hunting skills to get as close to the subject as possible. Staying down wind of the animal is very important as is using natural cover. As you know, some animals have a larger scare radius than others, so there are times you will have to build a blind to assure good shots of various animals

Only using lenses will give you the feel of which one you will want to use at different distances.

In general however, the longer the lens the better.

When I was a staff photographer working at an animal theme park, we had fast, long lenses like the 300 mm f/2.8 and 400 mm f/2.8. They were fine for shooting at dawn and dusk, but difficult to frame images precisely. Using a zoom lens usually worked out the best.

My favorite is the 200-400 mm f/4, but at nearly $7000, may be a while before you can budget for that lens.

You don't need VR for wildlife shots, so that will save you some money…

You have 2 very good choices for Nikon, in between the 55-200 and the 70-300 VR.

There's the Nikon 70-300 ED, which appears to have been dropped off the list of current lenses, and the Sigma 70-300 APO. Note the ED on the Nikon lens, this is not the same lens as the G version, it is a much better lens. Don't get the G, it is cheap for a very good reason… It is cheap. If you can find the ED model, it will set you back $325-$350.

The Sigma is about the best lens going in this focal length for less than $250, you can probably get it at $200 or so if you look around enough. The new 55-300 VR is $389 at B&H.

Please click on "Add Details" and tell us exactly which camera you are using and what kind of animals you want to fill the frame. Squirrels or deer…
~~~
I sent a note elsewhere, because I could not use that many links in an answer.