Nikon owners: thoughts on the 55-200 VR from Nikon?

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
It's a consumer tele zoom, decent feature set but nothing stellar as far as optics go.

What body are you planning on using it on? And what do you want to shoot with it?
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,861
4
81
Originally posted by: virtuamike
What body are you planning on using it on? And what do you want to shoot with it?
D50, and it will mostly be used with outdoor settings. My current lens collection includes the 18-55 kit lens, 50mm 1.8 prime, and the Sigma 105mm macro prime. I've found a couple of times that I would've liked a bit more reach on a couple of shots. I've taken quite a few pics with the 18-55 kit lens that I thought looked fantastic, so I'm fairly immune at this point to thinking I need expensive glass to get good optics. Besides, consumer glass is all a poor man can afford. :)
 

Imported

Lifer
Sep 2, 2000
14,679
23
81
Not sure if you could spring the extra $200 for it, but the 70-300 VR is supposedly quite a bit better from what I've read.
 

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
Originally posted by: Imported
Not sure if you could spring the extra $200 for it, but the 70-300 VR is supposedly quite a bit better from what I've read.

In that price range, I'd rather get a used 80-200/2.8 :)

$500-ish could also get you a used 85/1.8 and 180/2.8.
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,861
4
81
Originally posted by: virtuamike
Originally posted by: Imported
Not sure if you could spring the extra $200 for it, but the 70-300 VR is supposedly quite a bit better from what I've read.
In that price range, I'd rather get a used 80-200/2.8 :)

$500-ish could also get you a used 85/1.8 and 180/2.8.
I concur on the used 80-200/2.8. I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet, but it will still be a couple of months.
 

ZOXXO

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2003
1,281
0
76
If you want to run with the low budget theme, get an eBayed Nikon 80-200mm F4 AIS manual focus lens for ~100 bucks.

Of course on the D50 the manual focus and lack of meter coupling will mean full on manual shooting but the sunny 16 rule, histogram and highlight blinkies make this feasible for relatively static subjects.
 

IeraseU

Senior member
Aug 25, 2004
778
0
71
It really depends on intended use. For walk around / travel type photos, the 80-200 f/2.8 would be heavy and cumbersome while a 70-300VR would be perfect.
 

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
Originally posted by: ZOXXO
If you want to run with the low budget theme, get an eBayed Nikon 80-200mm F4 AIS manual focus lens for ~100 bucks.

Of course on the D50 the manual focus and lack of meter coupling will mean full on manual shooting but the sunny 16 rule, histogram and highlight blinkies make this feasible for relatively static subjects.

If manual is an option, that really opens things up - 50-135/3.5, 75-150/3.5 Series E, 105/2.5, 85/2, 180/2.8, 200/4.
 

ZOXXO

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2003
1,281
0
76
Originally posted by: virtuamike
Originally posted by: ZOXXO
If you want to run with the low budget theme, get an eBayed Nikon 80-200mm F4 AIS manual focus lens for ~100 bucks.

Of course on the D50 the manual focus and lack of meter coupling will mean full on manual shooting but the sunny 16 rule, histogram and highlight blinkies make this feasible for relatively static subjects.

If manual is an option, that really opens things up - 50-135/3.5, 75-150/3.5 Series E, 105/2.5, 85/2, 180/2.8, 200/4.

True that.

Not sure of the legacy support in the Canon and others lines of DSLR cameras but I find the prospect of finding bargain twenty plus year old Nikon lenses that rival or surpass modern offerings intriguing.

On the other hand, it is amazing how well older pro quality lenses have held their value.

What's a poor boy to do?:D
 

Imported

Lifer
Sep 2, 2000
14,679
23
81
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: virtuamike
Originally posted by: Imported
Not sure if you could spring the extra $200 for it, but the 70-300 VR is supposedly quite a bit better from what I've read.
In that price range, I'd rather get a used 80-200/2.8 :)

$500-ish could also get you a used 85/1.8 and 180/2.8.
I concur on the used 80-200/2.8. I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet, but it will still be a couple of months.

I'd get the used 80-200/2.8 as well given my circumstances. I don't mind toting a 80-200/2.8 around, but I know my mom would. :p
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Imported
Not sure if you could spring the extra $200 for it, but the 70-300 VR is supposedly quite a bit better from what I've read.
I had the chance to play with a 70-300 VR and I was very impressed with it.
The 55-200 seems ok, but the 70-300 seemed much nicer.
 

pennylane

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2002
6,077
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Imported
Not sure if you could spring the extra $200 for it, but the 70-300 VR is supposedly quite a bit better from what I've read.
I had the chance to play with a 70-300 VR and I was very impressed with it.
The 55-200 seems ok, but the 70-300 seemed much nicer.

The 70-300mm is $200 more, so I'd imagine it's nicer.
 

jdkick

Senior member
Feb 8, 2006
601
1
81
I just picked up the 70-300VR myself, also for a D50. I already had the 18-70mm AF-S and 50mm f.18D in my bag.

For months I wrestled with the concept of buying a used 80-200mm f2.8D but, in the end, I simply was not prepared to handle a lens of that size/weight (1.3kg) as my only tele-zoom. Sure, i'd love to have one for a few events I attend each year, but I felt it's size/weight would be prohibitive in too many other scenarios for which i'd still want the reach. So, right now, the 70-300mm VR is a perfect fit. It's small/light enough for travel or walking/hiking and will perform quite well in at least 90% of the conditions in which I shoot/need the reach. I'm also finding VR to be a nice addition given that this isn't exactly fast glass. At some point, I will revisit the concept of an xx-xxx f2.8, but that will be down the road and when i'm willing to use the equipment in a fashion where it pays for itself. :) Right now, this is just a personal hobby with the odd favour here and there. I have no requirement for professional equipment.

Anyway, i'm quite pleased with the purchase. The build quality meets or exceeds that of the 18-70mm and the lens performs well right up to to it's maximum focal length.

OP, If you're happy with the IQ and feel of the 18-55mm kit lens, then you can probably save some $$$ and go with the 55-200mm VR. On the other hand, for a little more, the 70-300mm VR will give some added reach (105-450mm on a body with DX format sensor), will AF/MF like a proper AF-S lens should (no switch to flick) and I suspect it offers better build quality (metal mount).