Thoughts on 55-200 DX VR lens?

G

gustafson

Senior Member
OK, so I'm getting a great deal on a barely used 55-200 VR (not VR II) zoom lens ($50). I currently have a 35mm F/1.8 prime and the 18-55mm kit zoom, and thought this may be a good option to cover me in the telephoto range (zoomed in shots of kiddo, backyard animals, wildlife, etc.)

Can anyone that has or has had the lens weigh in on the pros and cons of having this lens? Is it possibly a waste even at this low price?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
I don't know the seller, this was an item on Craigslist. Do you have the URL to run a serial number check? I wasn't able to find one using Google.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
Mine is sharp, sharp sharp, super nice on D300.

I paid $80 from a trusted local C/L seller if I recall correctly......mint. I assumed it would be pretty much junk, it amazingly is far from it. Walking around with the 18-55 VR is a lightweight to carry joy....

Public place meet of course.

:)
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
FWIW called Nikon with the serial number but they don't really run a check. All they could tell me was where the lens was made, and that they wouldn't honor the warranty as it is not being purchased from an authorized dealer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
FWIW I sell stuff cheap on C/L all the time. Once my mind is made up to move an item I want it to go.

Guy might just need $50 to pay a bill and doesn't use the lens......

All C/L deals require extreme caution and a public place meet with cameras present of course.

Good luck, let us know how you make out! I think the 2 Nikkor DX VR kit zooms and a Nikkor AF 35 F1.8 is some serious gear capable of amazing results!

Enjoy your kit!
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
Thanks for the reassurance. Definitely plan to meet in a public place and take a few shots with the lens to make sure it's not a dud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
You Nikonites are awesome! Thanks for being there to guide a newbie, you have no idea what a great help it is!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
OK, first off I'm happy to report that I'm still alive Second, I ended up passing on the lens. Turns out it had been stored without a lens cap, and I saw what looked like minor blemishes on the lens. When I pointed it out to the seller, he took the lens from me and tried to wipe off the blemishes with the pouch that came with the lens. Now I'm no Ansel Adams, but that was a tipoff that he probably hadn't taken proper care of the lens and that I was better off walking away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I notice you included wildlife in you subject list,200mm only seems long when you dont have 200mm:D try for at least a 55-300 or you will be buying again very soon.
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
Thanks for the advice, mikew and Michael. I get the "better have it and not need it" logic, but at the same time, the 55-300 & 70-300 seem considerably heavier and more expensive, which would be big trade offs for the additional range. Guess I need to go to the local camera exchange and try these lenses on in person. As for the 55-200 I trialed today, I was quite impressed with its compactness and lightness as well as performance based on the few test shots I took.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
gustafson said:
Thanks for the advice, mikew and Michael. I get the "better have it and not need it" logic, but at the same time, the 55-300 & 70-300 seem considerably heavier and more expensive, which would be big trade offs for the additional range. Guess I need to go to the local camera exchange and try these lenses on in person. As for the 55-200 I trialed today, I was quite impressed with its compactness and lightness as well as performance based on the few test shots I took.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your not wrong,it depends how interested you will be in wildlife,if it gets serious you can forget light and compact :D
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
Haha, fair point! Truth be told, I tried to convince myself not to even bother with tele and focus instead on mastering the 35mm prime. But of course next thing you know I find a good deal on CL and read a couple of good reviews and suddenly I have to have it. Now I know what that NAS thing is all about


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
S

SteveH

Senior Member
In the world of lenses, believe me the 55-300 is a real lightweight! I have the 55-300 and it's not a problem at all to hand hold shots all day long, plus the image quality is better as is the build quality. My honest advice would be to save longer, and get the 55-300 VRII or better yet the 70-300mm VRII.
 
G

gustafson

Senior Member
OMG @hrstrat57, you slay me! @SteveH, thanks for the heads up on the weight not being that big an issue.

So to change topics a bit, last night while waiting for the seller to show up, I took some test shots with my 35mm prime. I took a shot of a strip mall about 150 feet away under street lighting, and a couple of close-ups of the table I was sitting at. When I got my hands on the 55-200mm, I took a shot of the strip mall zoomed in at 200mm, and a few close-ups. When I reviewed the shots later, I found to some surprise that the zoomed-in shot with the 55-200mm was way sharper than similar crops of the shot I took with the 35mm prime. The shots with the prime also showed purple fringing around neon signs, while the 55-200mm showed none. Not sure if this is common knowledge, but I was under the mistaken impression that images of distant objects with the 35mm prime would be comparably sharp once cropped, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Remember if you crop you emphasize any irregularity's or shortcomings that may not be a problem in the original,cropping 35mm to match 200mm is quiet a crop
 
Top