Nikon 55-200mm lens

[alyssadanielle89]

I have the 18-55mm kit lens.. im looking in to getting the 55-200mm lens.. i take more pics of senery and landscapes would that be a good lens to get?!,

 

[Nikanon]

I have the 18-55mm kit lens.. im looking in to getting the 55-200mm lens.. i take more pics of senery and landscapes would that be a good lens to get?!,

No. If you are shooting mainly scenery and landscapes you will need a nice wide angle lens. What camera are you shooting with?

 

[daggah]

It's always useful to own a telephoto...yes, even for landscapes. (It can be useful to isolate specific features of a scene, or to change the sense of perspective so a distant background object such as a mountain range appears more dominant in the scene.) The 55-200 is affordable and lightweight...I own one myself. But if I had it to do over again I would've bought a 55-300 or 70-300 instead for a bit of extra reach.

 

[bc_steve]

the 70-300 is better than the 55-300

 

[holly125]

I have the 18-55mm kit lens.. im looking in to getting the 55-200mm lens.. i take more pics of senery and landscapes would that be a good lens to get?!,

No. If you are shooting mainly scenery and landscapes you will need a nice wide angle lens. What camera are you shooting with?

bingo

 

[Patriot]

Save up for some good glass. I wouldn't get it and I have it and NEVER use it.

 

[greybeard]

I have the 55-200 and optically it is excellent. They are small, light, and do the job. With that said, the 70-300 is a much better lens in build quality, focus speed and the extra reach comes in handy too. An added bonus for the 70-300 is that it will also work on an FX full frame body which the 55-200 will not. (this reads like a bait and switch lol) However, the 70-300 is more than double the price of the 55-200 and within their ranges the IQ is pretty much the same. (jmho)

I shot this yesterday with a 55-200, it is heavily cropped.


4 geese on the Buffalo-mod.small by Greybeard16, on Flickr

 

[Rafterman]

I have the 18-55mm kit lens.. im looking in to getting the 55-200mm lens.. i take more pics of senery and landscapes would that be a good lens to get?!,

I have both the kit lens and the 55-200mm VR and I too love shooting landscapes. Typically, you'd use a wide-angle for landscapes. That being said, if the 18mm isn't wide enough for you, then you need to get an ultra-wide. Some examples would be the Tokina 11-16mm ($700), Tokina 12-24mm ($450, I have and LOVE it), Nikon 10-24mm ($800), or the Sigma 10-20mm ($480).

I have used the 55-200mm in the past for some landscape stuff like isolating a particular part of the overall scene, but mostly I use it for shooting birds. If you want one, they're only $215 now on Amazon and are a great lens for the price. The 55-300mm VR that others mentioned above is $400, and the 70-300mm VR also mentioned earlier is $590 brand new. Not sure what your budget is though, so I'm just throwing everything out there.

 

[TheLost]

A few posts have talked about the 70-300... just to make it clear:

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR = BETTER then the 55-200!
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF = WORSE then the 55-200!

 

[greybeard]

A few posts have talked about the 70-300... just to make it clear:

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR = BETTER then the 55-200!
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF = WORSE then the 55-200!

Yes, the 70-300 f/4-5.6G AF has no VR nor focusing motor and is a plastic mount. I have read though that the optics are pretty much the same as the ED IF AF-S VR version. I have one that I can use with my D7000 from time to time. Pretty soft at 300mm but, it is better at 300mm than the 200mm cropped. (imo)

 

[alyssadanielle89]

Nikon D3000

 

[alyssadanielle89]

I was looking at the 70-300mm lens also. I want something with a really good zoom. I found one on amazon for $144 thats sigma brand and its f/4-5.6 SLD macro lens and a tamron af f/4.0-5.6 di LD for $199.. Witch brand is better?

 

[jrizal]

I was looking at the 70-300mm lens also. I want something with a really good zoom. I found one on amazon for $144 thats sigma brand and its f/4-5.6 SLD macro lens and a tamron af f/4.0-5.6 di LD for $199.. Witch brand is better?

the nikon 70-300mm G, tamron, and sigma are at par with each other in terms of IQ. Advantage of the non-nikon lenses are the macro switch and built-in focus motor so that there can be AF in the D3000/D5000 series and older Nikon cameras.

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR: TAMRON: Camera & Photo

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300m...qid=1361399911&sr=8-2&keywords=sigma+70-300mm

Do note that all three lenses are decent at best and not really known for their sharpness. Main selling point is the added focal length given their pricing. Look at the sample pics in the web to judge image quality for yourself.

 

[jrizal]

You can also consider refurbs if budget is a concern.

Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR DX AF-S ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty

http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-55-200m...oom-Nikkor-Lens-Factory-Refurbished-27494.cfm

 

[pixmedic]

I would look for a used 70-300 VRII lens. much better