Is a 50mm-200mm neccessary ?
- Thread starter backlash
- Start date
- Status
2.8photography
Senior Member
most people would probably say yes
its a decent lens, and the price is quite reasonable. however, you really have to think of what you want to shoot with the lens.
when i just started photography, i was always looking for longer focal lengths. but now i dont really use them a lot, so my tele lenses are underused.
so think about it - if you mostly shoot portraits/landscapes you might want to think about getting another lens
its a decent lens, and the price is quite reasonable. however, you really have to think of what you want to shoot with the lens.
when i just started photography, i was always looking for longer focal lengths. but now i dont really use them a lot, so my tele lenses are underused.
so think about it - if you mostly shoot portraits/landscapes you might want to think about getting another lens
blackdrakes
New Member
Why not?
It's a good cheap telephoto zoom with VR.
It's a good cheap telephoto zoom with VR.
Might I ask what is the actual zoom range? (3X,4X ????)
CYRN
Senior Member
What compel me to consider this lens is becasue of the shots I took at the zoo... kit lens is good for capturing but there is a limit to zoom.
Sad ....
blackdrakes
New Member
I think you'll need 300mm for zoo shots.
70-300VR is a good choice.
70-300VR is a good choice.
55-200mm VR is a great piece of glass. sharp, contrasty, and has VR! i was like you once, thinking i must get this lens to complete my set up. but slowly i realised i only used it.. at the most 3 times?
ended up selling it off and getting the tamron 90mm macro!
so at the end of the day, its what you shoot that defines your gear. not the other way round.
ended up selling it off and getting the tamron 90mm macro!
so at the end of the day, its what you shoot that defines your gear. not the other way round.
2.8photography
Senior Member
well for zoo shots, i believe even 200mm cannot cover everything. a lot of photographers use over 500mm to shoot zoo photos.
if you are planning to go back to the zoo, or do similar shots (birds, sports, etc.), this lens would be a good start to ur telephoto lens collection
i suggest you try and borrow this lens, or even just using a 200mm lens before you make your purchase. it will help you see what 200mm is like, and what you can do with it
yyD70S
Senior Member
The AFS 70-300mm VR gives you more reach (of course) compared to the AFS 55-200mm VR; amongst the consumer zooms offered by Nikon. It's VR (although not a replacement for fast lens) is also of the second generation as compared to the shorter zoom. It's about 2-3x the price though.
Wzierbovsky
Senior Member
I've got all three lenses; the 55-200mm, 18-55mm (though VR version), and the 50mm f1.8. Of the three though the one I use the most often is the 18-55mm. The 55-200mm comes on if I'm shooting animals, which is maybe like 5-6 times a year only.
The 55-200mm doesn't give me the entire range even with a cropped sensor and the light through the lens is a little low. But IMO I can still get pretty OK shots from it, and for the asking price it's hard to complain.
The 55-200mm doesn't give me the entire range even with a cropped sensor and the light through the lens is a little low. But IMO I can still get pretty OK shots from it, and for the asking price it's hard to complain.
I think what you have to really ask is whether it is suitable for you. Everyone has different shooting needs. If you find that you need a lens with more reach then your kit lens, then the 55-200 is a good buy; otherwise, it'll end up unused and gathering dust at home.
No matter how cheap a lens is, it is still money spent, and if the lens you buy is really not a need, then it is not money spent wisely.
No matter how cheap a lens is, it is still money spent, and if the lens you buy is really not a need, then it is not money spent wisely.
I've got all three lenses; the 55-200mm, 18-55mm (though VR version), and the 50mm f1.8. Of the three though the one I use the most often is the 18-55mm. The 55-200mm comes on if I'm shooting animals, which is maybe like 5-6 times a year only.
The 55-200mm doesn't give me the entire range even with a cropped sensor and the light through the lens is a little low. But IMO I can still get pretty OK shots from it, and for the asking price it's hard to complain.
Thanks for the advise. I will consider the points you mentioned. One of my worries is also the f-stop for this particular lens. But I suppose with good lighting condition, I think good shots are still within reach like you have mentioned.
BTW I m very comfortable with my 50mm f1.8 even though I m doing MF on it. As for my Kit lens(18-55) only under good lighting condition will I use it. ( No money to buy Flash )
Point Noted. Thanks for the advise. There is this constant struggle going on. I cannot decide between the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Nikor 55-200. The Zoo trip made me realized that I need lens for both low light condition and Zoom shots. B'cos some of the enclosure in the zoo are really dim in lighting and only my 50 mm can do justice to the pictures. My kit lens can only work in broad day light even at biggest f-stop. And when I m taking pictures of lions and tiger, can only manage a certain amount of zoom on my kit.
I m sure alot of the seniors here would have encounter this problem.
Wzierbovsky
Senior Member
IMO, the Tamron 17-50 won't give you any more additional reach compared to the 18-55mm outside the slightly wider angle, but the F2.8 will help. The Tamron 17-50mm won't help at all if you're thinking about getting closer-ups of animals.
I think it finally comes down to usage. Do you intend to shoot animals semi-frequently, or is it a every 1-2 year thing? If so, and if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't buy the 55-200mm. I'd sooner just rent or borrow one when I need it for the one occasion. And as for the Tamron, IMO, perhaps exhaust the 18-55mm first, and only when you absolutely find the 18-55mm limiting your photographic potential, then pick up the Tamron. Lens lust is a dangerous thing, especially when funds are limited and you're still finding your way.
Just my opinion, as I'm still learning too.
I think it finally comes down to usage. Do you intend to shoot animals semi-frequently, or is it a every 1-2 year thing? If so, and if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't buy the 55-200mm. I'd sooner just rent or borrow one when I need it for the one occasion. And as for the Tamron, IMO, perhaps exhaust the 18-55mm first, and only when you absolutely find the 18-55mm limiting your photographic potential, then pick up the Tamron. Lens lust is a dangerous thing, especially when funds are limited and you're still finding your way.
Just my opinion, as I'm still learning too.
Point Noted. Thanks for the advise. There is this constant struggle going on. I cannot decide between the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Nikor 55-200. The Zoo trip made me realized that I need lens for both low light condition and Zoom shots. B'cos some of the enclosure in the zoo are really dim in lighting and only my 50 mm can do justice to the pictures. My kit lens can only work in broad day light even at biggest f-stop. And when I m taking pictures of lions and tiger, can only manage a certain amount of zoom on my kit.
I m sure alot of the seniors here would have encounter this problem.
IMO, the Tamron 17-50 won't give you any more additional reach compared to the 18-55mm outside the slightly wider angle, but the F2.8 will help. The Tamron 17-50mm won't help at all if you're thinking about getting closer-ups of animals.
I think it finally comes down to usage. Do you intend to shoot animals semi-frequently, or is it a every 1-2 year thing? If so, and if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't buy the 55-200mm. I'd sooner just rent or borrow one when I need it for the one occasion. And as for the Tamron, IMO, perhaps exhaust the 18-55mm first, and only when you absolutely find the 18-55mm limiting your photographic potential, then pick up the Tamron. Lens lust is a dangerous thing, especially when funds are limited and you're still finding your way.
Just my opinion, as I'm still learning too.
Thanks for the pointers. I will definitely re-evaluate my options with much consideration now.
I am also in a similiar situation to you. I sold off my 18-200mm and got myself a 17-55mm f2.8. In addition I have a 50mm f1.8 and a tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. Initially I was looking to replace the 18-200mm with the 17-55mm and another 55-200VR. But after using the 17-55mm for a few weeks and re-evaluating my shooting style (I shoot events, macros, still life more often), I decided I will seldom need the 55-200mm.
Of cos, when going to the zoo or travelling, the telephoto will be extremely helpful but these occasions are pretty rare. So I decided to put the 55-200mm on hold for now till I can justify using it more than 10-15 times a year cos I hate leaving lenses unused in the dry cab.
Of cos, when going to the zoo or travelling, the telephoto will be extremely helpful but these occasions are pretty rare. So I decided to put the 55-200mm on hold for now till I can justify using it more than 10-15 times a year cos I hate leaving lenses unused in the dry cab.
- Status
Similar threads
