Why not a 55-200 VR f4-5.6?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by chrismead, Jul 28, 2007.

  1. ...Why do I not see too much written in this forum about this lens? It is too cheap - does that mean you rich folk look down on it? Does it miss the point - does it almost replicate the 18-200, but not do it well enough to be worth the money?

    It appears to fit in well with a kit 18-55 and so surprised that not everyone raves about it. Is it awful? Anyone with any examples please?

    Chris
     
  2. slappomatt

    slappomatt

    811
    May 13, 2006
    San Diego CA
    well for one, its a new lens and not alot of people have seen them yet. The reviews of it say its a good lens for the price but that the older non-VR is a little bit better opticly. but both are rather slow in aperture.

    I would hazzard a guess here that more active members here have a 17-55 2.8 than have 18-55 3.5-5.6, there is a whole lot of lens lust going on here. (myself included.)

    have you done a search? I have seen some post on it.
     
  3. kgill

    kgill

    853
    Jul 25, 2007
    Europe
    pics with 55-200VR

    You can look at my photos taken with this lens in my flickr photo stream. I like the lens, but after using primarily the 50mm f/1.8, I get very frustrated with the speed of this lens. However, it's a pretty good lens for the price and if you are looking to have fun and take nice pictures, it's perfect. If you want something fancier and are willing to spend more, I guess the 70-200 is for you.

    flickr.com/photos/threelayercake

    Here are a few highlights

    800731076_561497db69.

    490069690_c67a3b24f1.

    826798209_8de7858772.

    550173890_be948987c2.
     
  4. Yeah, I am going to pick this lens up some where. I,ve seen some images from it that are very good . I am thinking of getting it and a Canon 500D close up filter. It will be easy to handle and easy on the wallet also.
     
  5. kgill

    kgill

    853
    Jul 25, 2007
    Europe
    Well my last photo there is very out of focus, which is a problem of mine because I shake, and apparently too much for the VR and the speed of this lens, so I'd probably be better off shooting at very fast shutter speeds, but I got this lens because there were no other zooms in stock when I got my camera, and I am not disappointed. I recommend it to anyone on a budget.
     
  6. lamk

    lamk Guest

    If you don't mind changing lens the quality will be better than the 18-200vr. It's a love hate relationship with the 18-200vr. It's so versatile but you need to work around it's flaws and compromises like CA, softness and distortion.
     
  7. I just picked up the 18-55 (Thanks, Peet), and have been thinking about this lens or a 70-300G for my "light and fun" kit. I don't want to sink a lot of money into equipment that will be primarily be used by my students and by me when I'm in my boat or just goofing around.
     
  8. Okay - time to come clean! In a moment of madness - you know when lens lust and ebay fever come over you - I got the winning bid on one of these. Now that I will be an owner I started seriously looking for reviews and was unable to find much. Looking forward to getting out with it soon (if the rain ever allows).
     
  9. Kgill - I hope my pictures come out as well as yours. Thanks for sharing.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Why no VR on 300/4 Lens Lust Dec 15, 2012
Why did I try a 600mm VR? I'm in LOVE! Lens Lust Feb 28, 2011
Why does the 70-200 VR-I refurb cost more than the VR-II refurb? Lens Lust Jan 30, 2011
Why can't Nikon make a 16-75mm f/2.8 VR? Lens Lust Sep 6, 2010