Opinions on the Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
I realize this lens isn't anywhere near the build quality of the 70-200 f2.8, but I bought one to test it out and I don't know whether to be disappointed or glad that I got a 200mm lens for a under $250.

Here's a pic taken when the lens at 190mm f/5.6. I don't know if the doubling on the left is from the VR or just too much camera shake. What do you think?
DSC_0823%20copy.jpg
 

Qarik

New member
it appears to be just bokeh. It is not a pleasing bokeh. the 55-200mm is a consumer lens and it shows.
 

Attachments

  • Bildschirmfoto2014-01-29um172038_zps846e39a0 (1).jpg
    Bildschirmfoto2014-01-29um172038_zps846e39a0 (1).jpg
    73.8 KB · Views: 802

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
Yeh, I realize that when I compare shots taken with higher quality lenses. I didn't realize the doubling was actually crappy bokeh though. yack
 

blueiron

New member
Was the VR on? I have seen a number of photos using that very lens and while the photos aren't museum quality, they were very much better than the bokeh shown.

Was the camera in Program, Manual, Shutter, or Aperture mode?
 

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
VR was on. I think the camera was in portrait or auto mode. This photo is also cropped a bit.
 

blueiron

New member
Try a similar photo without VR and on a tripod/monopod if you have one.

VR in the inexpensive lenses can be problematic. Try shooting low flying birds on Program mode for an example. You might get 1 or 2 viewable shots out of about ten attempts.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
I have that same lens and I'm very happy with it. No problems so far. Focus is good, bokeh is good when I need it, the price was certainly right. I use mine in Program mode mostly, though, at a sport setting I have set up in one of my Bank modes in my D200.
Something I've heard from pros is.....if using the 55-200 on a tripod, not to use the VR. Apparently it defeats the purpose or something. I'm not too clear on why that is, but that's what I understood. Worst case scenerio, jdeg........perhaps a lemon lens? I would hope not, though, it being a Nikon lens.
 

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
I took more shots that same day that came out okay, for example:
DSC_0844.jpg


So I think the lens itself is functioning as it's supposed to. It's just not a 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II :)
 

blueiron

New member
The 55-200mm is a consumer lens. The 70-200mm is a professional lens.

The 70-200 has the following benefits:

It is much faster at f2.8, allowing for sports photography in arenas, rinks, and venues where flash photography is not allowed.

It focuses mcuh faster and can track players or performers as they move about, much more easily. The 55-200mm tracks movement rather poorly.

It is made of metal and will withstand abuse. The 55-200mm is plastic and it feels like it.

The 70-200mm is a hard lens to find for sale because the demand outstrips Nikon's ability to make them.

The 70-200mm definition, clarity, and accuracy blows out the 55-200mm in every aspect.

If photography is more than a casual interest and you want to take demanding action photos, you need the 70-200mm.
 

jdeg

^ broke something
Staff member
well, I'd be out $2k more if I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII but it would be producing better pics. Amateur vs pro lens. Is the price worth it to me? Nope, I'm not a pro.

Ken Rockwell's review on it is here.
 

blueiron

New member
If you want the same performance, in nearly the same parameters, get the prime 180mm f/2.8. It retails for about $1,000 and you only lose 20mm at the distal zoom end.
 

pjl

Senior Member
I like my 55-200.
For what I use it for, which is mainly landscape type shots where I need to zoom in a bit.
Doesn't quite open up like an 18-200 would, but it works for me.
Haven't tried it for close up/macro type shots, though.
It was cheap enough and can produce some very nice shots.DSC_4408_1_web.jpg
 

pjl

Senior Member
Hehehe; just read your posts, blueiron.
I've got a 180 2.8; love it.
It's kinda beat, but for $100 off Craig's list, I couldn't go tooooo wrong.
 

cfphil

New member
I recently picked up the 55-200 VR for $75 on Craig's List. It was a smashing deal as the lens was in excellent shape. The person selling just wanted to get rid of it. I think for a lens under $200, it is pretty good. I am no pro but that still does not mean I would turn down an opportunity to get me hands on a pro lens. However, I always apply the 80-20 rule. The pro lenses can give you the extra 20% image quality that is noticable to only a handful of people. Yea, I see the flaws in photos I take but I just process my images through NX2 to recover some of that 20% I want. I paid $114 for a new copy of NX2, a far cry from an extra $1000-$2000 for the 20%. Really, most people do not zero in on flaws like we do. It is like painting a room. You know where you screwed up, but most people don't look as close as you do at your work.

Anyway, the only thing I found odd with this lens is that with VR on and if the camera is ultra-stationary, there is blur. Turn VR off and it is clean. I think this is what someone else was refering to about turning VR off on a tripod. I believe it is just the VR in this lens. I have the 18-105 VR lens and have not experienced the same behavior.

I have captured some really sharp images with this lens. In addition, I found the color reproduction in my copy to be quite good.
 
Top