Nikkor 55-200 VR

[Ilyanep]

Hey there.

I've got a Nikon D50 with the 18-70 lens [decided to go for that over the kit lens cause it's much nicer], and I'm considering buying the 55-200 with VR in the next six months or so, to increase my range so I can take pictures of stuff like wildlife :)

The only thing that strikes me as 'meh' about this lens is that there's no A/M mode for focus and the focus ring is much smaller [and at the end] than my 18-70's.

Just wondering:

- What are people's experiences with this lens?

- Since this would be my second lens, how much dust am I likely to get by changing my lenses often [I already somehow managed to get dust on my sensor while I only have one lens and it was an adventure getting it out (and you can still occasionally see small specks on really bright images but I usually just clone it out and it's no big deal)]

[jdepould]

Get the 70-300 (or 70-200 if you can swing it). Longer zoom, has the option to focus manually without flipping a switch, and the focus ring is the same size as the 18-70. Extra bonus, the zoom ring is positively monsterous.

[Ilyanep]

Get the 70-300 (or 70-200 if you can swing it). Longer zoom, has the option to focus manually without flipping a switch, and the focus ring is the same size as the 18-70. Extra bonus, the zoom ring is positively monsterous.

Thanks for the suggestion. Looks like an awesome lens [actually pretty much looks like the telephoto version of the 18-70], but if I decide to get this, it'll take some saving to get the $530 for it :\ Yet it seems very much worth it.

[I got myself into a pricey hobby when I bought my D50, didn't I? :D]

[RexK_Cozumel]

Or if you want Tamron make a nice 18-250 lens that I recently bought about $500 but it is well worth it. Yes it is a slippery slope you got your self on but the trip is well worth it. I find that the 18-250 is the perfect walk around lens allowing me to take both wide angle and good zoom photos.

[jdepould]

Or if you want Tamron make a nice 18-250 lens that I recently bought about $500 but it is well worth it. Yes it is a slippery slope you got your self on but the trip is well worth it. I find that the 18-250 is the perfect walk around lens allowing me to take both wide angle and good zoom photos.

Doesn't have image stabilisation though, does it?

[RexK_Cozumel]

no unfortunately it does not but that is why I have a 24-120 VR lens :-) and a 50mm 1.8 but anyways I try not to get into situations where I need to shoot low light hand held shots.

[jdepould]

no unfortunately it does not but that is why I have a 24-120 VR lens :-) and a 50mm 1.8 but anyways I try not to get into situations where I need to shoot low light hand held shots.

When you're zoomed out to 300mm it's less about low light than it is about camera shake. Even at 1/500 you can still get some blur.

[topslakr]

My vote would be to save for the 70-300mm VR as well. It's a great lens, no question. The price is sort of high but it's been worth it for me. 70mm seems to be the focal length that matches what my eyes see, basically with the lens at 70 mm things in the view finder are the same size as what I see without the camera. When I use the lens for fast motion or for wildlife ect I track the object with both eyes, one on camera, the other not. When I'm ready to shot I grab the massive zoom ring, frame the image I want, and shoot. Does that make any sense? Sounded simpler in my head I guess.

I have found myself using the 70-300 for a lot of softball games and wildlife tracking and being able to see with both eyes to follow the action has greatly increased the number of shots I'm able to get.

I got mine at Adorama and it only cost me $480. Here is the Link (http://www.adorama.com/NK70300AFVRU.html?searchinfo=70-300%20vr&item_no=2)

Topslakr

[Ilyanep]

Makes sense. I think I will save for the 70-300, and when I get it I'll probably keep my 18-70 on for most general purpose things, and then put on the 70-300 for situations where it can really shine [things like wildlife pictures, and if I ever choose to photograph any sporting events, etc]

[Tifosi248F1]

I would consider that a good choice. Even though it is double the price of the 55-200, you gain 100mm and it compliments the 18-70 quite nicely. I absolutely love mine. As for getting dust on the sensor, it's bound to happen no matter what. All you need to do is be careful when you change lenses. Minimize the time a lens is actually off the body and face the opening downward so dust doesn't actually fall inside. I changes lenses a lot and I don't often notice the dust in my photos. It really starts to be a problem on blue skies or bright, light colored objects. Around f/16 the spots really stand out while at f/4 they're not very noticeable. It's just something that everyone deals with and the more care you take in the process the less you'll have to worry about during processing. Good luck.

[jdepould]

The dust isn't too bad, my sensor is relatively dusty and it rarely shows in pictures. I've been meaning to get it cleaned but I don't have anyone here that I trust, so I'm waiting til I get back down to school.

[quietjim]

My base gear is a D70s, a 55-200 VR and the 18-70 mm along with an SB-800. I can put one lens on the body, the other in a deep pocket of a Tech vest and the SB800 in the other side and go for a whole day. What I find is that this lets me get the wider angle shots but also gives me the punch for most things that I want to frame up close. I'd go with your plan; the 70-300 is nice but you'll be better off getting out there and getting shots than waiting.

[jdepould]

My base gear is a D70s, a 55-200 VR and the 18-70 mm along with an SB-800. I can put one lens on the body, the other in a deep pocket of a Tech vest and the SB800 in the other side and go for a whole day. What I find is that this lets me get the wider angle shots but also gives me the punch for most things that I want to frame up close. I'd go with your plan; the 70-300 is nice but you'll be better off getting out there and getting shots than waiting.

I disagree, there's still plenty to be had with the 18-70. IMO it's really a lot more useful, long lenses are fairly limited in their applications.

[Ilyanep]

My base gear is a D70s, a 55-200 VR and the 18-70 mm along with an SB-800. I can put one lens on the body, the other in a deep pocket of a Tech vest and the SB800 in the other side and go for a whole day. What I find is that this lets me get the wider angle shots but also gives me the punch for most things that I want to frame up close. I'd go with your plan; the 70-300 is nice but you'll be better off getting out there and getting shots than waiting.

The thing that puts me off about the 55-200 is the same reason that I got the 18-70 over the 18-55 [that being A/M mode and a better focus ring, and the extra 100 mm would be useful]

My 18-70 works for most situations, which is why I'm not in a huge hurry to get the second lens.

[jeffegg2]

I have the 55-200 VR and love it!