55-200 vs 70-200 (Nikon)

[KmH]

Say what?

If you used the appropriate capital letters, wrote complete sentences, and used the approrpriate punctuation when you posted, people could better understand what ever it is you're trying to communicate.

An additional benefit would be an increase in the credibility attached to your responses.

Or is your goal to just drive up your post count?

 

[Ginu]

The 70-200 VR is superior vs the 55-200 in terms of quality, sharpness, build, AF speed, fixed 2.8F stop, it is after-all almost 10x the price and a pro lens.

the 70-200 will be sharp regardless on the focal length used meanwhile the 55-200 will give you soft images at the wide or telephoto side; in order to get the sharpest possible photos, you will have to shoot 70-180 or around there. According to the type of lens which you already have I would suggest looking towards a used 70-300 VR (they should run $300-350). Unfortunately the pro lenses are not cheap, even used lens are not cheap when it comes to pro glass.

The only disadvantage I can think of with pro lens it the size and weight of each individual lens

 

[cgipson1]

I haven't used the 55-200.. but most of the consumer grade lenses that Nikon puts are are adequate... but just adequate. A lot of them lack good corner sharpness, some lack good sharpness overall. They sometime have poor bokeh, and lack low light speed. But depending on how you shoot, and how much money you are willing to spend.. these lenses may do the job. There are a lot of people out there using them happily and getting good photos.

The pro glass lenses (24-70, 70-200, etc..) are wonderful, if you need them. Sharp (unbelievable clarity), good apertures (fast in low light, good to great bokeh).. fast focusing, very precise and reliable and EXPENSIVE. Do you really need them? That is up to you, and what you are going to do with them.

The Prosumer or Entry level Pro lenses that Nikon makes, might be a good compromise for you to think about. They are sharp (maybe as sharp as the Pro glass) and focus fast, and usually are very usable lenses. I have the 28-300 that I use on a D7000.. and love it. Yes.. I would love to have a wider aperture, but I can compensate. I also have the 10-24.. and it is a great lens... very sharp, and will do things better then the 14-24 FX did. Prices are about half of what the real Pro glass costs also. Much Much Better than the consumer grade lenses.

You can rent lenses, either locally or online... do that, try what you are curious about.. see you what you think for yourself. Only you can make the decision as to whether the additional cost and weight is worth it, when buying lenses. Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica and Pentax Just keep in mind.. you can give a pro a crappy body with good lenses, and he will take good to excellent shots... but give a pro the best body there is , but crappy lenses, and he will only take crappy to average shots.

Good glass is going to give the best chance of capturing the images you want.. no matter what body you use, or how skillful you are, it still depends on that.

 

[adversus]

If you are on a budget (which I'm assuming you pointed out the 55-200), then take a look at the 70-300. It's about $570-ish at the moment, I ditched my 55-200 the minute I got it. It's still no xx-200 2.8, but it's a pretty sweet lens for the price, if you are looking for a zoom.

 

[KmH]

Just be sure you get the AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, not the crapola, $170, AF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 .

By the way the AF-S 70-300 VR is an FX lens. :thumbup:

 

[Trever1t]

I used that lens as well and it's a fine jump over the 55-200 but nothing at all as nice as the 70-200 which if I had to name one, is my favorite lens

 

[kirbym2]

Thanks for all the advice... great thoughts and suggestions all around. I'm one of those people that's accumulated a lot of different equipment in a short time, and have decided it's best to try and master things with what I have. From what I gather, I can still take GREAT photos with the 55-200, but that the lens is limited. It's not a pro lens, and I can't expect pro results.

I want to get the most from the lens, so I'll try to keep in the 70-180 range to maximize sharpness, and stop down low enough to hit that sweet spot. Like many, I'll keep saving my pennies for the coveted 70-200.

On to new things - figuring out how I'm going to setup my Water Drop Shots... stay tuned

 

[Overread]

*moving to Nikon Lenses subsection*

 

[newb]

I have used and still own both. My 70-200 took a spill that Im positive would have destroyed my 55-200. So the build quality of the 70-200, is far better. The 70-200 outshines in low light @ 200mm easily. The 55-200 is way smaller and lighter. The 55-200 can still take very sharp, clear pictures. Especially on a tripod or in good light.

I preffer my 70-200 almost 90% of the though. Its a great lens.

 

[orb9220]

Hmmm have found my 55-200vr sharp and a great walkabout lens. And have shot over 5000 images over the last year at all focal lengths. And found it a great performer and sharp. And yep plastic inferior build but has held up to daily use and for less than $200 is best bang for the monies.

And found to be sharp enough for me. Tho do have the 70-300vr and is also a great performer and is my goto lens for sports and wildlife jaunts.

55-200vr at 200mm.


Bee on the Puple Yellow 1 of 2 Max Cropped by Orbmiser, on Flickr


Lobby Lilly 2 of 2 - Cropped by Orbmiser, on Flickr

And extreme center crop at 200mm of center of picture.


Lady Bug on the Spiny Bridge - Max Crop by Orbmiser, on Flickr

It's no pro performer. But it wasn't designed to be. But for me find it a great walkabout solution that covers 70%-90% of my needs on any given day. And the 70-300vr for specific needs of sports,wildlife,etc...

As to settings I usually shoot manual. As like to see and have absolute control over Shutter vs. Aperture for any given situation. And tho shoot 200 iso when possible. Many times I have to shoot at 800 in lower light and cloudy situations. Which on the D90 is a breeze and on my D200 is more of a challenge. As nailing exposure is critical in minimizing noise in an image.
.

 

[max_fox]

Night and day difference.

55-200 AF-S VR $150 retail. Fairly slow lens in every respect. Slow to focus, and pretty slow max aperture..... 4.5 I think, could be wrong. It is really soft at both ends of the barrel, so it's really only effective from about 70mm to about 180. Prety cheap build make entirely of plastic (for the body and lens mount). I traded mine for a 135mm 2.8 AI and never looked back. This lens will last a lifetime, mainly because it will spend most of it's time in a drawer after you get tired o the mediocre IQ and sluggish performance. If you drop it from higher than 3 inches, or bang it lightly into something you're done.

70-200 AF-S VR About a $2000 lens, and fast in every respect. 2.8 max apreture, and the AF if really quick. Very sharp IQ built well with mostly metal, and a metal lens mount. This thing will last a lifetime. I am saving my pennies.

My .02 of course, YMMV.

CAN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE.!!!

 

[billydoo73]

bokeh
optical quality
built like a tank
DOF
fast AF
tripod mount

bokeh, bokeh, bokeh

being able to compress a situation very well

bokeh

the 70-200 f/2.8 has to be shot with to really know what you are missing. don't rent one because you will buy one...somehow, you will find the cash or credit!

 

[cnutco]

...bottom line is, if you can afford the 70-200vr2, then get it.

I love mine!

 

[Crazypipo]

I used to have the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR when I just started photography. It works great in good-ok lighting situation...I wouldn't touch it in low light situation though unless you have the hot shoe flash with you. It produces great images and feel great in your hand.

I wouldn't compare with the Nikon 70-200 though...it's world different. The only thing I hate about the 70-200 is it's HUGE and HEAVY!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I have both the 55-200mm sitting here beside the 70-200 VRII.

I need to sell the 55-200 VR, I just haven't been using it.