Nikon 55mm-200mm Questions!

I'm getting a Nikon 55-200mm lens for my Nikon D3100 on Christmas and look forward to taking pictures with it. This will be my first lens other than the 18-55mm VR kit lens, but have used it before. My friend came over before I had my DSLR and brought his D90 with a 50mm, 35mm, 18-55mm, and his 55-200mm. We went boating and while his kids and my kids went tubing I was granted access to his camera for picture taking. It went well, had nice AF and AF Speed, and got a good zoom. Now, for my photography subjects, I usually get pictures of my service dog (Not Guide Dog obviously, but will leave his purpose a secret[Not a phony dog or therapy dog] until further notice) and he loves to play, but spends most of his time working with me just chilling. I will upload photos of him sooner than later, but anyways, I wanted to know if this is good for that photography. I also photograph my kids playing baseball and rugby. Do you know of any other good subjects for this lens? Thanks in advance.

When that lens is set at 55mm, it is perfect for someone to take a shot of YOU completely filling out your profile.

Seriously, I almost use mine as a walk around lens.

I don't shoot a lens, I shoot stuff. If the 55-200 is on the D3100, then thats what I use.

I have the D3100 and the 18 -55 and the 80 - 200 I use both almost equal. I always have the wrong one on the camera.

Carolina Photo Guy said:

When that lens is set at 55mm, it is perfect for someone to take a shot of YOU completely filling out your profile.

Seriously, I almost use mine as a walk around lens.

I don't shoot a lens, I shoot stuff. If the 55-200 is on the D3100, then thats what I use.

Click to expand...

I second that Pete. Also when I'm on outside work with the car I have the 55-200 attached in case I have a good shot.

I have: 18-55mm kit lens, 18-200mm VRII, 70-300mm VR and a Tokina Fisheye. I use the 18-200mm for travel, hiking and fun pics. I use the 70-300mm mostly for headshots/people pics and I use the Fisheye rarely. I pick the lens based on the picture I want to make as I try to " see and create" the picture before I push the button and take the picture.

If your dog is mostly close to you having the additional focal length (55-200mm) may not be that important. If the dog wanders and you want to be candid pictures of him/her just doing it's thing then the longer lens would be good.

I recently purchased this lens for my D3100 and it works well in conjunction with the kits lens. For outdoor use the 55-200 is about all I use. But I find that indoors it is often to much lens and the 18-55 works better. Now one of the draw backs I have found is in low light. The lens simply isn't fast enough for low light work. If I set my camera on a tripod and use a long exposure then this lens works will get the job done but it far from ideal.

Most days I want to take my 55-200 and smash it against the wall. Biggest POS I have ever owned!

Stangman98 said:

Most days I want to take my 55-200 and smash it against the wall. Biggest POS I have ever owned!

Click to expand...

I felt the same way, Damon. That's why I sold it and bought the 55-300 instead. Huge improvement! It's definitely an outside lens though. Just not fast enough for indoor use.

Mine is a real gem. I have some really nice sharp photos made with it. I guess you can get a bad one, but mine is great!

I bought my new 70-300 IF-ED VR last weekend so I would never be stuck having to use the 55-200 unless I want to. I have a 50mm 1.8 and now the 70-300. I am good with that. Given the 70-300 is expensive, but worth every penny!!

Well, this is embarrassing! On my most recent photos, taken today, I got these results with my 55-200 dx (Not the VR version). The shot was at appx. f/8 and 1/2500 sec. at the 120mm fl. Here is the photo, and center, edge, corner and bottom enlargements. I think my lens may have issues now. These settings should produce very sharp crisp edges. What do you think?

Photo:


Center


Left edge


Left Top Corner:


Center Bottom:

I know absolutely nothing about the newer lenses particulary the zooms but I would guess maybe your lens has been knocked out of kilter??? What is it like at slower shutter speeds?

Shutter speeds don't seem to effect it. Even on a tripod at lower speeds, the results are similar. I am thinking it might have taken a hit or something.

What about your other lenses??? Is it just this one lens?

Just this lens. I checked the corners of the photos I took with other lenses on the same day, and they were sharp to the corner.

Something's wrong with that lens I think. Probably isn't feasible to have it repaired. If it was mine, I'd "Ebay" it. The 70-300 seems to have many better reviews.

Yup! I agree the lens is a bottle bottom. But I don't want to pawn it off on some other unsuspecting photographer either. I guess I'll retire it, and start looking for another tele-zoom. I'm not sure which ones will work in AF mode with my D5000. I have several older lenses I can use which are not af, but this one and my 18-70 are my only true AF lenses for this camera. I wish all Nikons had the focus motor built in the camera!!!!

Thom

the dx 55-200vr is pretty good, but the non vr version has different optics and a very cheap and nasty feel to it. still, its light and compact, great for the d3100 owner.

Thom, why not go for the 55-300 VR lens? I'm sure you'd love it.

Carolina Photo Guy said:

When that lens is set at 55mm, it is perfect for someone to take a shot of YOU completely filling out your profile.

Seriously, I almost use mine as a walk around lens.

I don't shoot a lens, I shoot stuff. If the 55-200 is on the D3100, then thats what I use.

Click to expand...

I have the 55-200 VR and the 55-300 VR.

I really like the 55-200. I use it as a walk-around. It's light, fast and takes great shots. It's a very versatile lens. There are so many used ones out there I bought another one as a spare.

The 55-300 is a good lens. Takes great shots. I like having the extra range when needed. But, it is slow to auto-focus.
I found a refurb 55-300 for $269. At that price I couldn't pass it up. Within it's limitations it's a good lens but it's not as versatile as the 55-200.