|
Depends on what you're shooting. The 55-200 is pretty slow in terms of AF, not just in terms of aperture. Also, the IQ drops sharply when you go from around 150mm or so to 180-200mm. So, this is a horrible lens for working with birds, in my opinion.
If you're going to be shooting in daylight at f/8-11 for the most part, it's a great lens, and a great bargain.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It is slow-but for what it does, it is an absolute bargain.
A
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'd recommend it. For the price, the performance of this lens is tough to beat. I traded up from the non-VR version and never looked back.
*sorry. no pics to post.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, examples.
Shots tagged 55-200:
www.flickr.com/photos/kukkurovaca/tags/55200vr/
Comparison between 55-200 and 1970's-era 180mm f/2.8 P (non-ED non-AI):
www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157604536050354/?s...
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here's one taken at 200mm, 1/15s, ƒ/8 that I'm happy with:
Here's another one at 200mm, 1/800s, ƒ/5.6 that I'm not very happy with (but it'd probably turn out sharper if I'd stopped down to ƒ/8 or below):
Another one at 125mm:
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have this lense, and I like it, though I rarely use it.
I prefer to have the 18-55 kit lense attached to my D40x, to fit landscapes and architectures. One good thing is also that it has 52mm filter thread, same as the kit lense.
Sorry, I don't find any pictures made with it - on this laptop.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
thanks! this is all helpful. So you don't recommend it for night photography? I don't mind using MF.
Kukk thanks for posting the link to the other thread, I will check it out.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I love it and use it all the time. I do mostly wildlife (mainly deer) and outdoor work (trees, flowers, etc.). I agree that it isn't as sharp as I might like at the 180 - 200 mm, however, I don't use a tripod and think that some of the problem lies with me, not the lens. I don't have any shots to share on this computer, sorry.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I debated this one for quite a while as I really wanted more length, but I finally took the plunge and bought it last week. I'm happy with it; like others I'll rate it a good value for the price, and I think it's a good lens to learn with as well.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am just an amateur but I am very happy with this lens. I would find it unreasonable to spend 800 to 1000 bucks on a lens at this point in my hobby. At 200 bucks I am thrilled with it's performance.
200mm Sample - hand held
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
frndrfo edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
"So you don't recommend it for night photography?"
"Fast" and "Slow" apertures are somewhat irrelevant for night photography because you almost always need to do a long exposure with a tripod mounted camera, even if you're rocking a D3.
In regards to your original question, I would save for the 70-300mm. The 200mm range was a disappointment, not enough to be capturing any soaring eagles and whatnot.
The 55-200mm lens ties with my 50mm for the "most gimp" award..
.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
Bree R edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
Bree, thanks for your reply. I wanted to get a 70-300mm originally but was put off by the price for a VR version (I was told it makes a significant difference). I may just go ahead and get the 55-300 for now anyway, most reviewers seem to like the value. I definitely appreciate your advice though!
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just checked out my local B&H store and it seems to have a different price for the same lens depending whether it's imported or not (USA made more expensive). Is that significant?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Neither lens is made in the US. (The 55-200 is made in Thailand or China, I forget which.) Nikon USA will only honor the warranty of the lens sold in the US; with the gray-market (imported) lenses, you'd have to take any problems with the lens to B&H.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh thanks K! You know everything :) That explains it.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm convinced that Kukkurovaca is some sort of sentient web-script. Probably the flickr dev team was testing out an automated community manager, and it achieved sentience. Next stop, Skynet!
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hmm well that's a great question, is there anyone here who has met K in person? Flickr definitely should pay him a salary.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hah! I don't know about flickr, but I firmly believe I deserve kickbacks from KEH. Haven't gotten any so far, though. : )
Also, there are definitely some areas where my knowledge falls flat. Flash, for example, is beyond me. (It's on my list of things to de-ignorance myself about; I'll get there sooner or later.)
BTW, not sure about skynet. I think I'd feel more comfortable running a humanity-destroying network of Civil-War era steam-powered cyborgs from the past, a la Hodgman's "Areas of My Expertise." Take Mathew Brady, replace his body with steam-powered iron chassis, and replace one arm with a gatling gun and the other with a view camera.
"Come with me if you want to be recorded for posterity."
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
kukkurovaca (a group admin) edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
It is rather scary how much you have thought it all through Kuk :)
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The 55-200 VR is an excellent choice for the not-too-serious amateur!! I use it occasionally, mostly on animals not too far away, because it's really not suitable for the serious bird shooter, they use mostly 70-300 mm and larger.
Also, it's very light and good value for the money. Get one! :)
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
stonepi thanks! eventually it would be nice to get the 70-300, but I certainly don't need it yet :)
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the 55-200VR and love it!! It definitely suits my needs. Check out my gallery - most of my shots are taken with this lens.
Definitely very good value for the $$!! This lens is on my camera 95% of the time.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The difference between the two (55-200 VR and 70-300 VR) is about 200$ and I think it is totally worth it both in extra range and built/image quality.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have a 55-200 mm and i pretty much use it all the time. Check my photos almost all of them were taken with that lens. I think it's a great lens perfect for a multitude of uses.
P.S. Forgot to add my lens is not VR but I still like it a lot.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
The_WRB edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
I have several zoo pics on the first page of my flickr stream that were done with the 200mm VR if you'd like to see them ... it's a good lens, but I often find it just doesn't have enough reach for me.
I'm currently saving for the 70-300mm VR. (I'm having a hard time with the price ... it's more than I paid for my whole D40 kit!)
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Walton Studio: "I'm having a hard time with the price ... it's more than I paid for my whole D40 kit!"
Most good lenses will be more than your D40 :-). Lenses matter much more than the body.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
don't be fooled into thinking that the extra 100mm reach of a 70-300 over a 55-200 makes a vast difference, it doesn't, it will make things about 1/3 larger but 200 is perfectly good as a telephoto length.
the most popular pro telephoto is the 70-200 F2.8 after all
I have a regular sigma 70-300 but i would gladly swap for a faster 55-200.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
felixspencer2 edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
It is slow AF, but that isnt why I got rid of mine. You see, I'm lazy, I didnt like carrying around 2 lens's in my pockets and flip flop back and forth between 2 lens's that the 18-200 VR has all together. So I sold my 55-200 and the kit 18-55 for the 18-200.
The 55-200 is a steal at the price you can get it for, pix are sharp as can be!
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dittos to felixspencer--I've never regretted money spent on faster glass.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Most good lenses will be more than your D40 :-). Lenses matter much more than the body.
Most good *new* lenses will be more than your D40. You can get *great* old lenses for much less. Which David knows, of course...
don't be fooled into thinking that the extra 100mm reach of a 70-300 over a 55-200 makes a vast difference, it doesn't, it will make things about 1/3 larger but 200 is perfectly good as a telephoto length.
This is *entirely* relative to your subject matter and the context in which you're working. For birding and certain other subjects, 300mm is often barely long enough -- but, then again, my 180mm has gotten me some great bird shots.
If I had to give up one lens right now, it would absolutely be the 55-200VR. I never use it anymore. My 300mm lens you can pry from my cold, dead hands, after I finish beating you with it. : )
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
kukkurovaca (a group admin) edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
200 mm is equivalent to a 300 mm on 35 mm film, which was in the good ol' film days quite big :p
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have the 55 - 200 mm and use it at 180 - 200 most of the time with a tripod. I really like the lens but I'd agree with the issues that have been described. I love shooting birds and wildlife so I'd also like something that I can use at longer distance and will give me sharper images. For example, my hummingbird shots are not that long but they are never very sharp. I guess that's the issue that so many of you have discussed. Here's a link to one:
www.flickr.com/photos/7947961@N07/2804539709/in/set-72157...
I've been thinking about getting a 70 -300.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Glovier that seems a bit noisy as well. What ISO were you using?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
For example, my hummingbird shots are not that long but they are never very sharp.
It's tricky. There are a lot of things that go into nailing a shot with a hummingbird in it. Focus needs to be precise, shutter speed needs to be high, noise is bad, so best to keep the ISO as low as possible, you need to be quick on the trigger, and the lens does need to be able to resolve detail effectively.
It's very hard to do all of those things at the same time, especially with a slow lens. With the 55-200, you have to choose between stopping down for sharpness or opening up to control ISO and shutter. Plus, the focus is so dang slow.
I've gotten usable hummingbird-in-flight shots with both my 180mm f/2.8 P and my 300mm f/4.5:
I can't speak to the 70-300 in particular, but I'm sure it would be a step up from the 55-200. But if you can get a lens with a tripod collar, that would be even better. A tripod collar and a monopod are really, really useful tools for birds in flight.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
kukkurovaca (a group admin) edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
As a side note, with birds, it pays to spend some time getting comfortable with noise reduction and sharpening. It's very easy for noise to spoil the appearance of feather detail, but it's just as easy for noise reduction to do the same. Selective noise reduction combined with high pass sharpening helps a great deal.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
-_m_- [deleted] says:
i use it, i love it. i use it for people mainly.....
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like many others I too bought the 55-200 VR, as my second lens. In my opinion I made a mistake in not saving for something with more reach. I use this lens quite often and mostly at 150-200mm for shooting wildlife, and I can surely say I could use more reach. The 70-300 would have been a better purchase for me, however for the money the 55-200 isn't a bad lens.
I would suggest visiting a local camera shop and checking into renting both a 55-200 and something with more reach, trying them both out for a weekend and then making a decision. I wish I had.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"I have a regular sigma 70-300 "
Felix, I have been borrowing the Nikon 70-300 vr lens which is nice but it's too rich for my blood costing $500.00. So I have been considering the sigma you have that costs $139.00 and I was wondering how you like it especially with regard to it not having vr. What is the slowest shutter speed you are able to handhold it at when you are shooting at 300mm and how fast is in focusing when you are aiming at something like a bird in flight?
Thanks Laurie! (who does like having the extra reach over the 200mm)
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LoveRise I asked the question whether to buy a Nikon 70-300 or Sigma here a few weeks ago and almost everyone told me to go with the Nikon. I also liked the low price of the Sigma but now I'm back to square one and considering the 55-200 VR instead, I really don't want to make a mistake, like someone here said.
Also, Kukkurovaca, what type of a macro lens do you use/would recommend? Thanks
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well Minka it's a tough one not having tried the sigma and that's why I hope people using it will respond. I've been using the nikon but it's a real heavy sucker though with vr it can take shots at really small shutter speeds handheld which is what I like despite it's size.
So for the price of the nikon telephoto. I can buy both the nikon 55-200 and the sigma 70-300 on amazon and the nikon 50 mm 1.8d prime on amazon and go out to dinner!! So I'm just wondering if I can give up the vr on the sigma for more bang for the buck??
I probably would end up using the 55-00-vr nikon as my day to day lens.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have both lens, 70-300 is great in the field, but for waking around I like using 55-200. So what do you like to shot?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
micstolz, I like shooting zoo animals in such a way that you can't tell they are in a zoo, so I favor long focal lengths that can be hand held and that can get good bokeh. So that's why I prefer the 70-300 mm nikor which does focus faster and hunts less than the 50-200mm. Yet as I said it's out of my budget. So I want to know how successful I will be in shooting with the sigma telephoto handheld?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
minka --
Also, Kukkurovaca, what type of a macro lens do you use/would recommend? Thanks
I use and recommend the 55mm f/3.5 Micro P. It's cheap, optically fantastic, cheap, light, sturdy, and cheap.
flickr.com/groups/micro-nikkor55f35/
flickr.com/photos/kukkurovaca/tags/55mmf35microp/
I love the 55 particularly because it's such a good lens for general work and non-macro closeups, which is what I mainly use it for.
Do click through and view at larger or original size.
If you need more reach, it might be better to go for a 105mm or longer lens (if you take macro shots of insects, esp.). The sigma 150 and 180 lenses are popular, as is the Tamron 90mm.
If you can afford them and you want the best, most modern lenses, the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-S and 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR are pretty much the thing.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
kukkurovaca (a group admin) edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
Thanks so much K! very helpful info, as usual.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
k, what about the M2 ring on that Nikkor?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Good point. To get 1:1 magnification with the 55, you have to use an M2 or equivalent extension tube, which means you're working with the subject almost right up against the lens's front element.
Incidentally, if you have lenses with aperture rings (AF-D or earlier), you can use the M2 with those as well. Handy for getting closer than you normally can.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
k that is an A W E S O M E photo of the flower. I checked out the large version and it is stunning!
Thanx for sharing it.
Warmly,
Laurie
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i have the 55-200 and LOVE IT. It is my Go-To lens for most shots
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i use the 55-200 non VR version and like it............though not in regular use now.........but its a great value for money......
here are some shots..............
sigma 70-300 is not bad either........its also value for money for amatures like me.........
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I shoot only manual focus lenses now...but a few months back I took this with the 55-200, @ 200mm
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I enjoyed the 55-200VR and didnt find AF slow to be honest.
Enjoying the 18-200 more though!!
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Get one!" Yours truely, Ken Rockwell :o)
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am satisfied about it, I am still a beginner and still developing the skill anyway...
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
minka,
It looks like the 70-300mm is what you want. That said, there are two Sigma 70-300mm lens, that work on the D40/x D60.
70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO for Nikon $139.00 and
APO 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO for Nikon $229.00
They both have a built-in motor that allows auto focus with all Nikons, but not HSM (Hyper-Sonic Motor).
WHY the low price?
They do not have Optical Stabilizer or Vibration Reduction
function. Why is this important ?
When shooting longer ranges, handheld, the VR becomes more important.
NIKON 70-300MM F4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR ZOOM-NIKKOR LENS
At $479.95 it is a good vale. If you want to go out an shot nature, save for the Nikon
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
mic stolz edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
Yep my 55-200vr is a nice bang for the buck zoom. But find it to slow for alot of wildlife and nature shots. With the 70-300vr being 3x the price seems a bit spendy and with not that more reach. So saving for a 70 or 80-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x or 1.7x which would give me the reach and faster speed for catching the subject. And would cost a tad more than the nikon 70-300vr.
55-200vr handheld. cropped to the max and was sitting in tree limb only 30-40 feet? away so just doesn't quite do it for me. Looking at large you can see blur by bird movement. But have to admit alot has to do with practice and honing the skills to capture wildlife.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
Orbmiser edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
Hello! I took this photo while testing my 55-200VR
Female Olive Back Sunbird
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh wow thanks everyone! I'm more confused than before I guess. I was about to buy the 55-200 (excellent photos everyone) but then read some responses like micstolz and it got me thinking. Well, it's good to do the research and I appreciate everyone's input. How important is the VR if the light is good? eg for bird shots like the one above?
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
minka6 I would get the VR one regardless. It's better quality (physically and I think optically as well)
Edit: Or step up to the 70-300mm AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
.David Chu (a group admin) edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
Look orb is right speed is great. NIKON 70-200MM F2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR ZOOM is $1629.00, or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG Macro HSM II Auto Focus is $799.00. Oh the NIKON TC-14E II 1.4X TELECONVERTER its $399.00
Ok I have $500.00 camera and 2000.00 in lens.
If you can MF look at KUKK shots and then KEH.com
NIKON 400 F4.5 Q AUTO NON AI $525.00
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
How important is the VR if the light is good?
VR is always important at the longer focal lengths. Not so much lighting levels as hand motion steading a shot is amplified with a zoom and VR compensates for that. VR also allows you to get away with using slower shutters in lower-light due to again slow shutter speed amplified by hand tremors.
If you only have $250 to spend than the best you can do in AF zooms is the 55-200vr. If you are willing to sacrifice AF for manual focus then you can get something like the 300mm f4 or is it f4.5? for around $200?
With Practice then usability of any lens goes up once an individual concentrates on mastering the limitations of a given lens. Some success can be had with zooms when camera is mounted on a monopod to steady the camera and lens.
Example I would not even consider taking my 55-200vr into darker woods as I know it would be a major struggle to capture subjects in motion in lower-light situations and could only use it on a tripod or monopod for static shots.
Instead I would have to sacrifice zoom for faster glass either a 300mm f4 type prime manual focus and an f4 is not even considered fast and have it mounted on a monopod to steady shots. Real fast would be a larger and heavier 80-200 f2.8 that goes for the $700-$900 range.
And since I don't have one would have to settle on my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to capture motion at a distance and hope I can crop to bring out the subject.
With practice you can get some decent shots of wildlife with the 55-200vr you just have to struggle more and end up with more throwaway shots due to speed of the lens.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
Orbmiser edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
My 300mm f/4.5 was about $80. You can also sometimes pick up a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 that's pretty good (Basegrinder has one) for about the same price.
It's possible to handhold these heavy old primes, but for best results, I suggest a monopod. A monopod plus the rock solid tripod collar on my 300mm f/4.5 is worth more to me than VR on a lens without a collar. (It's hard to overstate how useful collars are.) Obviously the awesomest lenses will have both, but will also be quite expensive...
BTW, the importance of VR varies to some extent with the handling of the lens itself. For example, I'm just as steady handholding my 180mm f/2.8 P as I am with my 55-200VR; the difference is that the 180mm isn't made of plastic, and its moderate heft is enough to dampen shake to bout the same degree (in my hands) as the VR on the plastic 55-200.
Originally posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
kukkurovaca (a group admin) edited this topic 46 months ago.
|
|
|
If you go with MF, GET the monopod they work great in the Zoo.
Kukk: Tokina 400mm for $80.00? you do find the great values.
Posted 46 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Nikon D40/x/50/60/5000/3000/3100 and Friends Club /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon D40/x/50/60/5000/3000/3100 and Friends Club discussion threads