Nikon 55-200 4-5.6 VR

Nikon 55-200 VR - What say you?

  • I own/ed one and really like/ed it...

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • It was ok but take it or leave it

    Votes: 8 25.8%
  • Belongs in the useless catagory

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • I would recommend one (based on its own merits - not on what else is out there)

    Votes: 12 38.7%
  • I would not recommend one

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Makes a nice spare lens

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • Use/ed it a little

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Use/ed it a lot

    Votes: 4 12.9%

  • Total voters
    31
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,282
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Just curious, I've seen a few 55-200 VR's going through the for sale forum and some even resold a few times. My question is this. How many of you have or have had this lens and how do/did you like it? Yes know seems light and cheap -buildwise- bang for your buck it seems like a reasonably decent lens. What say you?

I've been thinking about this lens for a while as some of you know and I bit the bullet and bought one today. Seems sacriligeous to put it on a D300 but since I've switched from my D-70 to the 300 my keeper rate with my 28-300mm has gone down
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,747
Location
San Diego
It is a great travel lens. IQ is good in good light, build is Ok for casual use.

Here are few samples.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
1,145
Location
Auburn, WA
I owned one for awhile. But to be honest I never really liked it. I always would use my 18-135mm and rarely did I use this lens. Though it was pretty sharp, just never used it much. I would say its definitely a good buy for only ~ $200.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
378
Location
Jacksonville, FL (Formerly from Miami)
Right now I am using it a lot. But With my future plans to get a deeper zoom (70-300mm) and/or a versatile zoom (18-200mm) I dont know if I will use this lens too often.

I think its nice to have and I wouldn't sell mine, even if I purchased the above mentioned.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
429
Location
Greenville, SC
The photographs at fredmiranda looks very artificial and looks more of PS image than a photograph of a live person. Compared to that the the GKR1 photos posted above look lifelike. I am not saying that the lens is bad, just that the images at Fred Miranda cannot be used to justify the lens.
 
J

jamesclarke

Guest
I'm interested in getting one of these in the near future. I currently have the 70-210/4-5.6 (a hand me down). Does anyone have any experience with these two lenses head to head?
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,120
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
The photographs at fredmiranda looks very artificial and looks more of PS image than a photograph of a live person. Compared to that the the GKR1 photos posted above look lifelike. I am not saying that the lens is bad, just that the images at Fred Miranda cannot be used to justify the lens.
most of the pictures on this forum are post processed. Post Processing can make up for a number of lens deficiencies. I can make my 70-300 VR look as sharp and contrasty as my 50 1.8 just by using a few mouse clicks. PP cannot simulate everything: like Bokeh for example (their is one program out there that isn't too bad). That being said most lenses issues: contrast, sharpness, micro contrast, color, etc are easily addressed/modified in the 'digital darkroom'. The naysayer’s have already stated that the pictures look post processed, that being said what do you think people would have said about the pictures if they original posted stated they were shot with the 70-200 VR ? I’ll bet you people would be praising them. I have seen the same psychological phenomena here on the cafe, you can take a picture of an out-of-focus dog with the 200 f/2 and people will state it's amazing, you can make a work of art with the 18-55 kit lens and people will state it's just 'ok' - funny how people's minds work isn't it ? :wink:
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,747
Location
San Diego
most of the pictures on this forum are post processed. Post Processing can make up for a number of lens deficiencies. I can make my 70-300 VR look as sharp and contrasty as my 50 1.8 just by using a few mouse clicks. PP cannot simulate everything: like Bokeh for example (their is one program out there that isn't too bad). That being said most lenses issues: contrast, sharpness, micro contrast, color, etc are easily addressed/modified in the 'digital darkroom'. The naysayer’s have already stated that the pictures look post processed, that being said what do you think people would have said about the pictures if they original posted stated they were shot with the 70-200 VR ? I’ll bet you people would be praising them. I have seen the same psychological phenomena here on the cafe, you can take a picture of an out-of-focus dog with the 200 f/2 and people will state it's amazing, you can make a work of art with the 18-55 kit lens and people will state it's just 'ok' - funny how people's minds work isn't it ? :wink:
I do have to say the fred site pics look plasticy to me. Perhaps, they would looked the same regard less of the lens used.

Part of the allure of dSLR is the ability to control how you want the picture to look by just few clicks on the computer. However, it can be overdone for sure. The pictuers I posted from the bird and the elephant were shot wide open at 200mm. The only post I did on them was 1 click of sharpening in Picasa to bring out more detail.

55-200mm VR s great lens for its own merits. I'm not sure if I can subscribe to the psychological phenomena.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
202
Location
Omaha, NE
I got the 55-200 VR when I first bought my D40x, as both had come out recently. I think that it is a great little lens with, with the VR making it even better. It's lightweight and it is very cheap. Bottom line: cost/benefit ratio is phenomenal.

With that being said though, my next major lens purchase will be a 70-200VR. Everything I've seen about this lens indicates it's just better, but for the $$$ more it certainly should be.

I'll still keep the 55-200 though, it's lightweight and delivers good results.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,120
Location
Myrtle Beach, SC
I got the 55-200 VR when I first bought my D40x, as both had come out recently. I think that it is a great little lens with, with the VR making it even better. It's lightweight and it is very cheap. Bottom line: cost/benefit ratio is phenomenal.

With that being said though, my next major lens purchase will be a 70-200VR. Everything I've seen about this lens indicates it's just better, but for the $$$ more it certainly should be.

I'll still keep the 55-200 though, it's lightweight and delivers good results.
always rent before you buy if you can.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
429
Location
Greenville, SC
The naysayer’s have already stated that the pictures look post processed, that being said what do you think people would have said about the pictures if they original posted stated they were shot with the 70-200 VR ? I’ll bet you people would be praising them.
Not really. I would be the first to say that it was a terrible waste of money to have used an expense lens for such lifeless pictures. I have neither of the above mentioned lenses and so I have no stake in praising them or putting them down:smile:
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,051
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
I cannot speak on behalf of others but I have the lens and I like it.
I have the non VR model that I bought used for traveling light. I honestly believe it does its part when the photographer does his. It is a professional lens, not the best built and it is mostly plastics but it fits anywhere, it is light and it is sharp; at least my copy is.
I have been pleasantly surprised with its image quality.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,282
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
HMMM interesting how the Owned it - take it or leave it - would recommend it selections all have the same score. I think the concensous is "Not a fantasitc Lens but for what it costs it is a decent lens that provides decent results." For the price I think its performance exceeds expectations. A great VALUE lens.

Thanks for all your input, any more out there?
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
I cannot speak on behalf of others but I have the lens and I like it.
I have the non VR model that I bought used for traveling light. I honestly believe it does its part when the photographer does his. It is a professional lens, not the best built and it is mostly plastics but it fits anywhere, it is light and it is sharp; at least my copy is.
I have been pleasantly surprised with its image quality.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
non vr works great for me on the d40..wouldn't want to risk my d200 and "pro" glass at the beach...;-)
shooting into intense late afternoon sun @f8
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

@f8
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

and not too bad out of the sun close in @5.6, 55mm, 640iso
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

:Love:
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,282
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Ya know Nute, Looking at your pics ya sure cant tell that it is a "Plasticy Cheapo lens" It sure gives good results. I think I am going to like using it. Yes even on my D300. I think that my 18-70 and my 55-200VR will make a good combination. Thanks for posting your examples.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom