55-200 vs 70-200 (Nikon)

kirbym2 · Aug 17, 2011

So I'm trying to figure out if I'm REALLY missing out here by using the 55-200. I'm nowhere near the position to afford a 70-200. Are there scenarios other than low light where the 55-200 really falls short? Any tips for getting the most from this lens?

Thanks

MTVision · Aug 17, 2011

I've never used that lens - but is it really that bad? I have the 55-300 kit lens and it works fine for me!

Ballistics · Aug 17, 2011

I use my 50mm 1.8D for pretty much everything, but I took this with my 55-200mm.

20110812_1 by Compressed Memories, on Flickr

Stradawhovious · Aug 17, 2011

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.

kirbym2 · Aug 17, 2011

@MTV - It's not bad at all... just can't help but have lens envy when I see people talking about their fixed aperture zooms which value at 10x my lens. I'm more concerned about standing two images side by side (one from each lens) all settings being equal - Is there a really noticeable difference?

@Ballistics - Awesome shot - Sharpness is incredible... tried a couple of full moon shots a few months ago, and just couldn't seem to pull out the detail like you did... I think I was shooting as wide open as possible... maybe that was the problem.

djacobox372 · Aug 17, 2011

You cannot achieve as narrow of DOF with the 55-200mm. The increased ability to isolating the subject is an even more important benefit of a fast lens then speed.

Vtec44 · Aug 17, 2011

The older 80-200 f2.8 is a lot more affordable but doesn't auto focus on baby Nikons. On a DX body, it has a FOV 120-300mm. I'm saving my penies for that lens!

Stradawhovious · Aug 18, 2011

Vtec44 said:
The older 80-200 f2.8 is a lot more affordable but doesn't auto focus on baby Nikons.

Probably one of the better deals out there. I've used this lens a bunch, and it's great.

Also less than half the cost of the 70-200 if you find a good used one. Usually $600 - $800 from what I've seen

lenejetlee · Aug 18, 2011

using kinds of lens is a great to have good and nice photo........

Trever1t · Aug 18, 2011

Having used both lenses I can't tell you how much better the 70-200 lens is! My quality took a huge leap as soon as I mounted that lens. Not that the 55-200 is a bad lens but rather the 70-200 (either one on a crop body) is a jewel to behold.

My suggestion, go rent one and see.

kirbym2 · Aug 18, 2011

Appreciate all of the advice. I've used the 70-200 VR a couple of times (borrowed from a friend). It's a little, um, heavy

. In all honesty I loved the lens. I'll definitely keep my eye out for the 80-200, as budget wise, that may be a little more realistic. Still a lot of saving to do in the meantime.

Any tips for getting the most out of the 55-200? I would like to be able to use it to isolate subjects, and I know that while I'm limited by lens speed, that there may be other variables to consider - any links or tips on this? Is there a "sweet spot" on this lens (i.e. f8-f11)?

Thanks again everyone!

KmH · Aug 18, 2011

There are 4 versions of the 80-200 mm f/2.8.

Two of them have a push-pull zoom. Nikon made a version for a short time that has an auto focus motor in it and it is designated as the AF-S 80-200 mm f/2.8.

The current AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D (new or used) is also known as the 2-ring 80-200 mm.

All 4 have good optics. Many think the AF-S 80-200 mm f/2.8 has better optics than the 70-200.

BJF · Aug 18, 2011

70-200 is much better then 55-200.

Nikon 70-200 VR + market price
Nikon 70-200 VR II + market price
Nikon 55-200 + market price
Nikon 55-200 VR + market price

Ballistics · Aug 18, 2011

Stradawhovious said:
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.

I've never used a 70-200mm but I will be the first to admit, the 55-200mm is slow as hell when it comes to AF.