Thoughts on 55-200 DX VR lens?

[hrstrat57]

$50 = winner winner chicken dinner!

(told ya it was sharp!!)

Now you have plenty of money left after the cheap 55-200 VR for more NAS!

seriously tho I grab it and go more than I expected with the D300 - it can fit in a pocket (my 70-300 AF S VR can't ) if I drop it no big loss and it produces decent images/snapshots.

Do I pack it for serious surfing or action shooting? Of course not but the 55-200 VR is far from the junk glass many here make it out to be. I am a big lens snob from way back, I was surprised at the performance of both bits of Nikon kit glass.

Once again, enjoy it for what it is - a super cheap piece of kit that takes good pics!

Keep us updated on additional NAS!

 

[gustafson]

Mike, good insight. I guess what confused me was reading that some folks shoot exclusively with the 35mm prime and nothing else. I also read someplace that with the 3300 having a 24MP sensor, even a wide lens such as a 35mm can produce crops that top a telephoto lens. My test shots quickly disabused me of that notion

The other issue with the 35mm test shot may have been the AF. I had set it to AF-A, and its not clear to me what the camera decided to focus on (There were parked cars, light poles, moving cars on the road, etc. in between me and the strip mall across the road. In the case of the 55-200mm at 200mm, the only thing in the viewfinder was the strip mall, so it likely had an AF advantage over the 35mm. Even so, lesson learned that you can't simply match shots with a tele by cropping shots with a 35mm prime.

 

[gustafson]

@hrstrat57, guess you missed my earlier post where I said I ended up walking away from the lens because of blemishes on the front lens and the likelihood that the seller hadn't cared for it well. So I'm back on the lookout, but might consider a refurb with a short guarantee period rather than playing the Craigslist lottery.

 

[hrstrat57]

@hrstrat57, guess you missed my earlier post where I said I ended up walking away from the lens because of blemishes on the front lens and the likelihood that the seller hadn't cared for it well. So I'm back on the lookout, but might consider a refurb with a short guarantee period rather than playing the Craigslist lottery.

Missed that !! Don't give up on C/L but it is hit or miss, usually hit for me!

Another better option is your LCS! My Nikkor 80-200 AF F2.8 was $500 with fancy case appeared unused. It is spectacular I would not trade it for anything!

good luck!

 

[gustafson]

Variation on this theme: what about a used 18-200 in lieu of the 55-200 & 18-55 combo? My uneducated take on the pros and cons is: overall smaller & lighter, fewer lens changes, at the expense of lower IQ and higher cost (the cost issue would be addressed some by buying used and selling the 18-55). Are there other pros & cons I should consider?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I have had the 17-55, 55-200 and presently have the 18-200 on my wife's D7000. The 18-200 is as good as either of the other two. I actually think it looks better than the 55-200. Again, this is just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michael J.]

3 years ago I used a Nikon 18-200 for a trip I liked. In December this year I am going to the same place again and I take the 55-300 with me. Through my experience I now that this lens is the better choice for this area.

I take my Sigma 10-20 and my primes with me. I feel so ready for this 9 day trip.

 

[gustafson]

Cool. Is the 300mm zoom mainly for wildlife, or do you have other uses for it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michael J.]

Cool. Is the 300mm zoom mainly for wildlife, or do you have other uses for it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use it for a walk around as well as for closeups

Look at thi sthread: http://nikonites.com/telephoto/13163-nikon-55-300mm.html#axzz2ZuUlWwHd

 

[gustafson]

Thanks, you've definitely put that lens to good use!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gustafson]

OK, so I was wrong about the sharpness on the 35mm for distant objects. I went back and redid the crop, and to my eyes the 35mm is not exactly the slouch that I made it out to be in my earlier post. The first pic is a 100% crop of the scene shot with the 35mm, and the second is the shot with the 55-200, except saved in less than max resolution so I could upload here. The 35mm crop is noticeably brighter and less grainy, but that is because it was shot at f/1.8 and 900 ISO. The 55-200 shot was at the max ISO of 12800 at 200mm and f/5.6. Now I see why people fawn over the 35mm prime!

 

[gustafson]

So much for walking away. The seller reached out to me and offered to knock a couple of bucks off for the blemishes, and I just couldn't say no haha

On further inspecting the lens, some good and bad news. The blemishes on the front lens cleaned up easily, and the outside of the lens is in pristine condition. However, it doesn't look like the VR is working properly. It seems to engage from time to time, usually when the camera is just turned on or woken up from standby, as evidenced by slight movements in the viewfinder and associated sounds when I half-press the shutter release. However, when I let the shutter release go and refocus on another subject, it does not seem to re-engage. Is this normal behavior, and does anyone know a way to troubleshoot / reset the VR? Thanks!

 

[gustafson]

So despite the VR issues, I decided to go out and have some fun shooting with the 55-200. Got some cool shots. The hummingbird and the moon are 100% crops, the other two pics of flowers were compressed to reduce file size. Is there any way to share full-size pics here?