My best shot from the 55-200mm Vr kit thingie.

B

Blacktop

Senior Member
As much as I love my 18-55 I just can't get along with my 55-200 for some reason.
When I bought it, I was under the impression that it has the same IQ as the 18-55 but in a telephoto lens.

Even my Sigma 70-300 without image stabilization takes better photos, IMHO.
Maybe it's just me..I don't know...
Anyway, this is the best I have taken with this lens.

Ocoee River-1635.jpg
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Felt the same way about mine. Traded it off with one of my old bodies and yet I see some amazing photos on this site that were taken with that lens. It is just like tools, some you bond with and some you don't. So you just have to use what you are comfortable with
 
D

dh photography

Senior Member
I'm rapidly growing a similar feeling towards mine. It just is not impressing me at all with crisp shots at anywhere near full zoom. If my 18-55 wasn't producing some super shots, I'd think the camera was malfunctioning half the time. Just so soft to me. I'm on the search for some type of replacement for it, but good glass telephotos are just a bit out of my reach for the time being. :(
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
RON said:
Felt the same way about mine. Traded it off with one of my old bodies and yet I see some amazing photos on this site that were taken with that lens. It is just like tools, some you bond with and some you don't. So you just have to use what you are comfortable with
Click to expand...

I feel the same but sort of in reverse about my Sigma 120-400,common sense tells me it struggles to make the grade but i love using it,keep being tempted with the 150-500 and then start thinking the Tamron 150-600 but i just love what i have.
 
P

Philnz

Senior Member
Just selling my 55-200 bids at 101 NZ$ at this point still 3 days to go. Now using a 55-300 which I paid 325 NZ$ for brand new. I do like the 18-55
 
F

Felisek

Senior Member
Interesting. I bought my 55-200 as a cheap light lens I can carry with me for the rare occasions when my excellent Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is not enough. At the price (below £100 in the UK) I didn't expect much, but I was rather surprised by image quality. After a hundred or so shots I actually quite like it. Here are a few examples.

1MG_1367b.jpg

1MG_1183a.jpg

1MG_1716c.jpg
 
S

Sailor

New member
I find that the 55-200 does not focus fast when in AF-C mode. My Sigma 70-300 does a better job. As far as sharpness goes, the Nikon does a good job. My only complaint. Waiting for my Nikon 18-300 to come in. :)
 
E

Eyelight

Senior Member
The AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED is not the most wonderful lens, but it can make a good shot. I'm still playing with mine and I think I would describe it as not very forgiving. I discard a lot of shots that simply are not very sharp due to all the reasons that images aren't sharp; movement, poor light, simply OOF, etc.

The thing that this lens does not do well is focus, either manually or AF, and when the focus isn't dead on, then a wide aperture or movement is magnified 100 times. An otherwise good shot becomes just too soft. I've learned to bracket focus either manually or force the AF to do it again and again.

I had perfect focus on a bird the other day and a guy in Singapore dropped a penny; knocked it out completely.

Thing to do is put the lens on the camera and shoot until the lens starts to behave. (This will actually be because you learn almost subconsciously what the lens will and will not do.)
 
Top