Cheap, but is it any good?

Hello everyone...

I was on some concert last night, shooting for my self with D7100 and Sigma 17-50 f2.8, here are some photos:



I am thinking about Nikkor 55-200 VR, but It is not a fast lens, and not very good at 200mm as I can see on various reviews, but for 160 Euro it is a steal.
I am doing some calculations here, last night I testd my D7100 at ISO 5000, 1/320 shutter speed and f2.8 aperture, and here you see the results, for my eyes it is nice, there is no too much noise, photos are usable so I am thinking about 55-200 at f5.6, I will need to lower shutter speed to 1/80 and raise ISO to 6400 to get the same exposure.

What are your thoughts, is that 55-200 usable at all, or worth what it costs?
Maybe Sigma 50-200?

1/80 shutter speed with the 55-200 lens, get ready for some motion blur from the band (strumming hands, head bobs) even if you're on a tripod. ISO 6400 will need a little more noise reduction PP, but it's workable with the right exposure. I'd say, if you need a little more distance out of a lens on a budget, get a longer prime at 1.8. Maybe the 85mm or 105mm?

Other than that, if you're still after a budget zoom, I'd say skip the 55-200 and go ahead and get the 55-300, or better yet the 70-300 on a refurb. Great performers with enough light.

I had the 55-200 VR and used it on my D5100 and it was a good lens. When I put it on my D7100 and shot a few times I never used it again. The D7100 is such a sharp camera at 24mp you really need a good lens on it to get the most out of it. My 18-140 and
70-300 both do an excellent job. Save your money and skip the 55-200.

zdravo!

first of all, I dont know who the band is but I have a small request, next time go to a Ceca concert and post those pics for us all to see

skip the 55-200. it is a great value lens but this is the wrong environment for it. i certainly would not go to a concert with a lens slower than 2.8 on the camera. 1/80 is too slow and as pretzel said you will be disappointed with the fuzzy pictures due to motion blurr. as a rule of thumb I try to go for a shutter speed at least twice the 35mm equivalent focal length I am using. 100mm dx focal length is 150 35mm x 2 = 1/300! not always doable but a rough guide at least.

Pozdrav!

No doubt it is a good little tele-zoom. I was able to get the below photos at a Disney On Ice show. However, if taking those kind of shots is your thing, you may want to invest in a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. They are pricey, but a far better choice then the 55-200 or a 70-300, which is just as slow.

Thank you all...

@Englishdude
I would beam her to outer space only if I could, the least I can do is to avoid and ignore her.

The truth is, I do not need telephoto lens that much, I had 55-300 and almost never used it, so I sold it after 6 months. It was very slow, both aperture and autofocus, filter thread rotates while focusing, it is a bit larger than 55-200 VR, simply I do not like it.
I thought for 160 Euro it can sit in my bag, even if I use it periodically. Sometimes I take some shots from the car, so telephoto lens would be nice.

About shutter speed, here are some examples with 1/20, 1/30, and 1/50:



But I agree, in order to keep more than 80% it should be faster than 1/80 of a second.

So there is nothing afordable with f2.8 aperture?

D7100 will allow you to look at D glass. How "bout 80-200 2 ring AF D F/2.8?

btw I have both the 55-200 AF-S VR and the 70-300 AF-S VR. Both are great glass.

I don't expect either are fast enough tho for extreme low light concert shooting. I posted some recent college basketball pics I took with the 70-300 here on the forum at ISO 4000 on the D700 but those were taken in a brightly lit division one facility.


if you just want a cheap zoom to throw in your bag for occasional use in bright light on a DX camera the 55-200 VR is a good get IMHO !

hrstrat57 said:

if you just want a cheap zoom to throw in your bag for occasional use in bright light on a DX camera the 55-200 VR is a good get IMHO !

Click to expand...

Well, that was my idea, this concert is just one-off, but still I wanted to see is it possible.

As for 55-200 VR, how sharp it is? I had 18-105, is it somewhere near?

I have the 55-300mm and on my D7100, it is next in line to get replaced, most likely with a Sigma 70-200 F2.8. For low light, the 55-x00's are slow as you know, so for not too much money I'll throw my suggestion into the ring... Maybe a 105mm F2.8, which would also do macro? Sure you can't zoom, but a good length and fast for low light.

I have used my D7100 at ISO 6400 a lot recently, and as long shoot accordingly (Not too many large dark areas & over expose a little if possible) it is perfectly usable.

No Good