Nikor 55-200 f4-5.6 VR ?

Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,281
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Any one have any experience and or knowledge of this lens?
I saw one today and seemed ok for the few minutes I had it in my hands. Plastic mount not metal, seems to me more of a "consumer" type lens. (not that thats bad or anything - to me implies build quality?)
 
G

gnet158

Guest
It’s an incredible piece of glass for the money, if your looking for this range you can’t go wrong (unless you’re a pro). It’s the best $210 I’ve spend on glass in years, the build is very cheap but don’t judge a lens by its mount. Try one, you’ll be pleased.

The only negative thing I can say about the lens is that it vignettes wide open, this is easily fixed in PP or even better NC 4.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
8,447
Location
Wilmington, NC
If the build quality and the noisy and slightly slow VR won't bother you, then it's actually a pretty decent lens.
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,281
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
If the build quality and the noisy and slightly slow VR won't bother you, then it's actually a pretty decent lens.


Not particularly fond of it? I do value your opinion, as this has many a good review at amazon, but dont know if they have the talent and knowledge or expertise of the wonderful people like yourself here...
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
8,391
Location
LA (Lower Arkansas)
Actually, you get a bit more than what you pay for with this one. It's tack sharp from end to end - which really suprised me.

The only drawbacks (like Linda said) is that the focusing speed of this lens is a bit slower than what would normally be expected from an AF-S lens. It's also built rather cheaply...but I'm sure you noticed this while handling it.
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,281
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
BourbonCowboy said:
It's also built rather cheaply...but I'm sure you noticed this while handling it.


It did feel a little "Cheap" but I really liked the VR. Seems kinda shame to want to use it on my D300 but I am finding I need either faster glass or something VR and for me this seems like a reasonable (?) compromise. It is discouraging tho as US pricing is around 200 to 220 and in Canada it is 300. Huge difference especially when the dollar has been so close for a long time now.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
1,230
Location
Southern California
Actually, you get a bit more than what you pay for with this one. It's tack sharp from end to end - which really suprised me.

The only drawbacks (like Linda said) is that the focusing speed of this lens is a bit slower than what would normally be expected from an AF-S lens. It's also built rather cheaply...but I'm sure you noticed this while handling it.
DITTO.... I totally agree with this. I have one that I tuck in my bag while I've got the 17x55 hooked up. It's light, fits the little pocket I have, and takes me to 200mm when needed.
 
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
684
Location
Modesto, CA
Any one have any experience and or knowledge of this lens?
I saw one today and seemed ok for the few minutes I had it in my hands. Plastic mount not metal, seems to me more of a "consumer" type lens. (not that thats bad or anything - to me implies build quality?)
Build quality is what you can expect for 200 bucks...

One of my first shot with the 55-200...
I liked the lens a lot had to sell it to fund the 70-200 though.

Handheld,

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/475310899_1a0dd43949.jpg?v=0
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
8,447
Location
Wilmington, NC
Not particularly fond of it? I do value your opinion, as this has many a good review at amazon, but dont know if they have the talent and knowledge or expertise of the wonderful people like yourself here...
Sorry, I wasn't very elaborate in my wording.

I do like it for what it is, such as bringing it to the Zoo and for vacation shots. Actually, I should probably try to use it more on the kids than I do. It's lightweight, as you probably noticed. And it really is sharp. On occasion the slight delay with VR/Shutter has annoyed me but then....I think I'm pretty picky. lol
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,281
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Just another thought Or am I being paranoid...as I sit here reading the replies I looked over beside me and I have an 80-200 4.5-5.6D lens that I bought almost 10 years ago and hardly used as I found the short end (80mm) too long for indoor shooting and I went out and bought a 35-80 4-5.6D

Now my new quandry is that with the 1.5 crop factor of the D300 I suspect that the 55-200 VR would be similar to the 80-200 that I used on my film body? Hmmm now I am having second thoughts....I am not indecisive....yes I am.....no I am not....I might me.....gawd I am sooooo confuuuuuuuuuuused...
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
8,447
Location
Wilmington, NC
lol Bill. Yeah those things aren't easy. Where would you use a tele zoom indoors? For sports? I took my 55-200vr out in the yard to test it on my toddler. It did OK, but I had a pretty high OOF percentage.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
1,855
Location
New Orleans area, Louisiana
A very good consumer glass and great value.

Here are some examples that I made using it on my D80.

When you need a close up:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


When you need a medium tele:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Has a decent bokeh:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Reasonably sharp even wide open (in this case just f/5.6):
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
Aurora, CO
I use the nonVR version and yes it definitely is small and plasticky

I use it for Soccer right now - because I need the 200mm and it is all I have right now

I get a fair amount of keepers - I think it is a great deal for the low price

It does have some issues focusing when it is darker

I bought it as a stop gap lens until I was ready to buy the 70-300VR - now I may bypass that as well...see my sig
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,281
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Where would you use a tele zoom indoors? For sports?
Linda I found the 80 to be too long for people shots around the house. I suppose with the digital slr, tho it is more of a crop factor than it is a zoom factor in close quarters. I kind of prefer close crops for a lot of people pictures so I think I am flip floping. I need (want) to sell my 105 2.8 sigma first as I dont use it nearly as much as I thought I would. I find I just like the versatiliy of a zoom instead of being tied with a fixed focal length.
 
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,281
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
A very good consumer glass and great value.

Here are some examples that I made using it on my D80.
Thanks for posting those. Right now my "walk about lens" is my sigma 28-300 and I Am finding it a little disappointing with my D300. D300 seems a little less forgiving due to the increased pixels plus it is heavier so my keepr ratio dropped. I tried a 55-200VR in the store with a D300 and I liked it but I am a little gun shy as I was a little impulsive when I bought my sigam 105 2.8 that I hardly ever use.
 
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