Is the 55-200mm worthless?

[Ballistics]

When I first bought my camera I picked up a Nikon 55-200mm for the reach, also because I knew nothing about optics really. Fast forward to today, I feel like I can't take
a single decent photo with this lens.


flash12 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

This was a test shot out of about 20 test shots of multiple people, and I feel like every single one was slightly blurry.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

For a complete rookie, or someone who doesn't care about having great sharpness, it's an ok lens. For every other legitimate photographer on the planet? Yeah, it's pretty worthless.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I had one back in the day, if you stop around 170mm instead of going to 200mm you'll notice your pics are MUCH sharper.

 

[SCraig]

I had one back in the day, if you stop around 170mm instead of going to 200mm you'll notice your pics are MUCH sharper.

Agreed. It doesn't do well at 200mm and it doesn't like to be at widest aperture. Stop it down a couple of stops and shoot under 200mm and it does OK.

 

[Ballistics]

This was taken @ 105mm and F/9 with fill flash.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

This was taken @ 105mm and F/9 with fill flash.

Works better @ 105 than 200 too. But that fill flash is lacking...... =)

 

[Ballistics]

Just test shots though which was a part of our class. Our lesson was outdoor fill flash.

 

[1000_Islander]

Surely you jest! This image is tack-sharp on my calibrated IPS monitor.
Yes, the 'fill' flash is too bright, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the lens.
There are many reviews by professionals which applaud this value lens; have a look at the one by Ken Rockwell (Google Nikon 55-200, Ken Rockwell)

Nikon 55-200mm VR

 

[Ballistics]

Have a look at the hat and his jacket collar.

 

[tirediron]

I don't see that this is all that bad. Compare the price of this lens and the sharpness it delivers compared to the price and sharpness of the 70-200. Yes, the 70-200 is going to be sharper, BUT it is ten times the price. It's all relative.

 

[Ballistics]

Bruno14 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

Here's another from a little while ago. I really think this isn't sharp at all.

 

[Ballistics]

It looks better small, but once you expand it... it looks like crap.

 

[analog.universe]

There is also a difference between sharpness and microcontrast, and it seems to me these images are really lacking the latter. Sometimes it's a geometric effect of the lens design, whereby something always "spills" into the next pixel, but often in inexpensive lenses it's simply the lower quality coatings on the glass.

 

[Ballistics]

There is also a difference between sharpness and microcontrast, and it seems to me these images are really lacking the latter. Sometimes it's a geometric effect of the lens design, whereby something always "spills" into the next pixel, but often in inexpensive lenses it's simply the lower quality coatings on the glass.

Very interesting analog. So this microcontrast that you speak of (and your description matches what I'm seeing), is there anyway I can fix that? Or this is something I will always experience?

 

[greybeard]

I'm happy with mine. 200mm f/5.6
#1.............

DSC_0426 by GREYBEARD12, on Flickr
Cropped

Butterfly by GREYBEARD12, on Flickr