Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 26, 2007, 9:20 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tom LaPrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
Default

My 55-200 non-VR lens arrived yesterday from B&H, so I'll do some playing around in the next few days. (I know, the VR version is only about $50 more, but that's $50 I didn't have, and I used to hand-hold a Canon AE-1 with a 100-300mm zoom and do OK.)
Tom LaPrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2007, 11:13 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

And I suppose you needed it urgently or else I would op for the VR version. :roll:
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2007, 5:19 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Tom LaPrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
Default

No, I just wanted more reach than the 18-55 without getting my wife too mad at me. :lol: $169 vs. $220+, having already spent $500 on the camera. I'll re-teach myself the skill of holding the camera very still. (Actually, so far, so good with things that aren't moving. Panning to follow airplanes has proven a little tougher, but my "test shots" were at ISO 200 and I can always go higher.)
Tom LaPrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2007, 10:39 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Hmm seems to be a waste not to get the VR. Well I know 18-200mm fans may be piss about what I going to say next but it appears that it has quite a lot of distortion compared to this lens.

The 55-200mm VR got very good reviews because of price and the distortion is kept minimum. So I know 18-200mm is a all in one but comes with some drawbacks if you are really serious about photography. After reading some reviews on the 18-200mm I decided not to recommend it to my dad who uses a D80.
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2007, 5:40 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Tom LaPrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
Default

If I could have afforded the VR, I'd have gotten it.
Tom LaPrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2007, 12:06 AM   #16
v12
Member
 
v12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 90
Default

decent price but for not being a 2.8 lens will this be a detriment for running with a 1.4tc?

I would consider but am not sure if my light levels will suffer when used in conjunction with a TC

any thoughts?
v12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2007, 3:38 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

I recently got a D40 and last weekend purchased the 70-300 VR, I'm trying to decide if I should exchange it for the 55-200VR. I've seen some really good examples from others with this lens (70-300) but I've only gotten a few really good pics with it....


Any thoughts on this from owners of either lens?

Thanks!
Ron
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2007, 10:23 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Highway wrote:
Quote:
I recently got a D40 and last weekend purchased the 70-300 VR, I'm trying to decide if I should exchange it for the 55-200VR. I've seen some really good examples from others with this lens (70-300) but I've only gotten a few really good pics with it....


Any thoughts on this from owners of either lens?

Thanks!
Ron






Ur the 70-300mm VR is really a better lens if you are looking at tele zooms. I rate this lens near perfect as it has absolutely little distortions and not noticable by your eyes anyway. I will definately keep this lens and have a 18-70mm to cover your rest. Alternatively you could go 18-135mm and take the 70-300mm VR when you need the long range. Nothing wrong with the 55-200mm VR, is cheaper but when you need the extra zoom this lens is the last of the line to be comfortable enough to hand held and still take really good shots.

I have this lens the 70-300mm VR and absolutely no regrets on the purchase. One of the sharpest pictures besides next tothe good F2.8 series.

some examples of the 70-300mm VR



Shot at 2007-06-30





Shot at 2007-06-30


This lens is so good you can do Macro if you know how.

And the birds:


Shot at 2007-06-30


Shot at 2007-06-30


Seriously keep this lens and get yourself 18-70mm to cover the lower end. Check if you are using the lens correctly. All my best shots are now using this lens and they can be real sharp even at 300mm. If you are shooting in really low light then either lens wont make a difference, you need F2.8 to get what you need.

nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 10:21 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

Thanks much, I did decide to keep the lens and got some great pics this weekend with it. So I'm glad I did.

(nice pics you posted, those are great!)
Attached Images
 
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2007, 10:30 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 172
Default

And a macro from about 6 feet away, very cool to be able to do this. l
Attached Images
 
Highway is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:35 PM.