VR question

[cmulcahy]

I tried out two different Nikon VR's today...(70-300mm and 55-200) First off I

was stunned at the quality difference between the two lenses. The 70-300 was

built fairly decent but the pics were awesome - I was really impressed w/ the

sharpness of the pics that lens took. The 55-200 was the cheapest built lens

I've ever seen from Nikon. It was garbage and the pic quality was just as bad.

What really surprised me was the difference in the VR results. the 70-300 VR

was smooth, fairly quiet, and the results were great. The other lens the VR was

loud, the image in the viewfinder shook as I was taking the pic, and the quality

of the pic was horrible. Now I realize the price difference is significant, but

is that normal for a VR lens? Can you get that kind of variation or is this not

normal? I didn't expect the jerky/shaky action in the viewfinder while using

the 55-200. What is your opinion of this lens? I'm sort of wondering if that

lens I was looking at wasn't bad or something. I thought both were of even

quality until I used them both.

 

I do know that I want that 70-300 VR though. For that price especially, that

glass is great.

[kohanmike]

I have the 70-300 VR, bought for $550 early this year. It has been great for me on a D70s.

I'm looking forward to getting a D300 late this coming year because with the higher ISO, I

can get away with the slower aperture in more situations.

[Jerry_]

It could be you "tested" a floor model of the VR 55-200mm lens. I've both and neither VR lens has a noise factor....

[derek_boocock]

I agree with Gerald about the VR on the 55-200mm, you must have got a 'bad' one as mine worked smooothly enough. However for the reason you state above I quickly got rid of it, as the quality of image is just not good enough (I shoot sports mainly) and replaced it with the 70-200mm VR f2.8 - a true (Pro) sports lens.

[lex_jenkins]

Some folks who tested early samples of the 55-200 said it appeared that Nikon had to compromise AF-S and VR performance to squeeze that technology into a small, lightweight, affordable lens.

[elyone]

"It was garbage and the pic quality was just as bad"

 

How did you come to that conclusion? Where is your data? I would seriously like to see it.

 

I like the 55-200 VR and think it is plenty sharp. I try not to use it as a hammer. Also it's not fast. VR wont help when you need fast speeds, like for sports in low light; you need "pro" glass for that anyway. In this case, the 70-300 wont be much better.

[rday]

I've also had both lenses, and while it's true there is a big difference in build quality, I think the 55-200 gave some great images - far from garbage. Considering the cost of the lense, I think it's a very under-rated item, and a nice lens for any casual shooter. I'm curious how were you checking the quality of the picture? On the LCD of a loaner camera in a store? Maybe you tried a bad lens - that happens. I agree with Avi - depending on what you are shooting, the 70-300 may not perform any better, even tho it's a better built lens.