Is the 55-200mm worthless?

[Infinite_Day]

You don't have a UV filter on it, do you? I've found that a UV filter can cause a lens to be less sharp than what it would be without one.

 

[LowezAkar]

Sell it and aim for a similar lens like a 70-200mm F/2.8 lens and you will be very satisfied. Your image looks good but the kit lenses are so limited with those apertures.

 

[akwildshots]

well at least when you make your next purchase, you will be far more informed

 

[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.

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?

It is a factor of the lens design itself unfortunately. When high end lenses are described "punchy" or "vibrant", these are often the subjective manifestations of simply better contrast at ~1 pixel distances. Lenses that are known for this performance are often built with exotic glass, multiple coatings, complex geometries, and the precise mechanical alignment of many elements. All this stuff makes a lens very costly, so compromises are made when something like the 55-200 is designed.

 

[STM]

Honestly, as the saying goes, you can't get something for nothing. Zooms today are better than they were 25 years ago but they will ALWAYS be a compromise. And they are SLOOOOOW. Granted, they do give you the flexibility to change image size without changing position, but again at a cost. Flare, vignetting, lack of flatness of field, etc. For these reasons I no longer own any, opting instead to stick with all of my older AIS prime Nikkors on all my film cameras and D700.

Why not consider getting at least one prime for a focal length you use often?

 

[STM]

You don't have a UV filter on it, do you? I've found that a UV filter can cause a lens to be less sharp than what it would be without one.

This is not necessarily true. If you put a el-cheapo filter on the front of it, then yes it will degrade the image. But if you get a top quality, multicoated, UV filter you will most likely not be able to notice any difference all the way to 11x14 or beyond. I have UV's on ALL of my lenses because I often shoot in environments which are not always particularly hospitable to glass. And it is a WHOLE lot cheaper to replace a $50 or $60 filter than to have to replace the front element of a lens, especially on older lenses like I have.

 

[analog.universe]

Honestly, as the saying goes, you can't get something for nothing. Zooms today are better than they were 25 years ago but they will ALWAYS be a compromise. And they are SLOOOOOW. Granted, they do give you the flexibility to change image size without changing position, but again at a cost. Flare, vignetting, lack of flatness of field, etc. For these reasons I no longer own any, opting instead to stick with all of my older AIS prime Nikkors on all my film cameras and D700.

I have to agree with this. The various 70-200 2.8's are the only zooms that ever "impressed" me. They're simply just nice lenses. Given the cost/performance though, I still don't see owning one. For the same price as a 70-200 2.8, you can get an 85 1.8 + 135 2.0 + 200 2.8. They'll each do better than the zoom at the same focal length and aperture, and 2 of them are faster.

 

[KmH]

Many new to photography have difficulty deteriming gear shortcomings from photographer shortcomings, because they don't know how either function.

If you are shooting JPEGs, the camera is doing global edits to your photos before you ever see them.

So, did you shoot these as Raw files or as JPEGs?

His collar is likely at the near limit of the shallow DoF. It's to bad you use Flickr, because not all the EXIF data is shown on Flickr. Like the point of focus distance from the camera.

 

[Ballistics]

Many new to photography have difficulty deteriming gear shortcomings from photographer shortcomings, because they don't know how either function.

If you are shooting JPEGs, the camera is doing global edits to your photos before you ever see them.

So, did you shoot these as Raw files or as JPEGs?

His collar is likely at the near limit of the shallow DoF. It's to bad you use Flickr, because not all the EXIF data is shown on Flickr. Like the point of focus distance from the camera.

RAW @ about 8-12ft away. No UV filter. It doesn't look like DOF blur, more so than it does motion blur even though he was still.

 

[sovietdoc]

None of the cheap lenses will give you perfect dead-on sharpness. They probably could, but the camera manufacturers don't want them to be any good, so people would upgrade to more expensive lenses. That lens is the cheapest telephoto zoom they have, so it's not great.

But it's sharp enough for most applications. Take a shot with that lens and compare it to your point and shoot as the same magnification, and also consider that DSLR resolution is higher than P&S. Most of the time you don't need pixel-peeping sharpness because you will never look at 100% crops.

Those pictures you posted seem perfect to me and I can't see any missed focus on either or.

 

[greybeard38 10]

How much is the dog pictured been cropped?

 

[KmH]

RAW @ about 8-12ft away. No UV filter. It doesn't look like DOF blur, more so than it does motion blur even though he was still.

So what post processing did you do to any of the photos you posted?

If you didn't do any, that is part of your problem.

 

[Ballistics]

RAW @ about 8-12ft away. No UV filter. It doesn't look like DOF blur, more so than it does motion blur even though he was still.

So what post processing did you do to any of the photos you posted?

If you didn't do any, that is part of your problem.

I sharpened, adjusted white balance, and added a little contrast.