Trying to decide between the nikon 55-200mm vs 55-300mm?

I currently have an 18-55mm lens, and a 35mm. I need something with a little more zoom to take a few pictures of animals, specifically ones that I can't get too close to (such as on a safari). Between the two lenses, the 55-300mm costs $110 more, and can't use any of my filters, so I that could add to the cost. And it is also heavier. My question is, would I actually benefit from the extra zoom, or is the 200mm good enough? I need it for this weekend and I'm ordering one of the two lens tonight.

The only way to find out is to see for yourself whether or not 200mm vs 300mm is significant. In terms of specs and image quality, they're pretty much the same.

If I'm the one buying, I will go for the 55-300mm. For me, it's worth the price difference. Just for me.

Animals you want all the range you can get your hands on, get the 300.

Go with the 300mm… You'll need it especially on a safari.

You have a few solutions to the filter problem:
1.buy 58 mm filters
2.buy a step down ring 58-52mm. At 300mm you shouldn't experience much vignetting, probably much more at 55mm.
http://www.amazon.com/...0002E3WIQ/
3.sell your 52mm filters, buy a step up ring 52-58 and buy the 58mm filters.
http://www.amazon.com/...000J400XO/

FYI: I own a set of 77mm filters and 58 mm filters and i just use step up rings as necessary for the camera.

It all boils down to 300mm. How far does it go? Perhaps this would give you a valid comparison without actually going out and testing the lenses in-person.

http://www.tamron-usa.com/...arison.php