Nikkor 50-200mm f/4-5.6 VR for DX

[darius.tulbure]

Wouldn't be great if they would offer us a truly good, inexpensive telephoto

zoom lens for DX format?

 

Something like:

50-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR for DX cameras at around $500.

 

Today we, the novice budget-limited photographers, don't have too much choices

for a good telephoto from Nikkor.

 

The 70-300mm VR seems the best choice, but still it's too much for a DX camera:

it's big and heavy and the long end (450mm equiv. on a 35mm camera) is not that

useful all the time - not for everybody (plus it's too soft I heard). Then the

aperture, starting from f/4.5, is not that impressive either.

 

Then comes the 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 which ain't worth talking about for a lot of

reasons the numbers above say nothing.

 

Much better lenses are the 70-200mm f/2.8, the 80-200mm f/2.8 and others like

that but are very expensive.

 

I kind of feel Nikkor should market more good DX lenses in general.

[hans_janssen]

Or just a used 80-200 2.8 and you nevr think of another lens...

[thomas_fiege]

there is a nice telephotolens but you have to go the sigma way. The sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is a nice telephotolens which is small fast and realy good as you can see in this post <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Oh5Q" >Sigma 50-150/2.8 APO HSM version II</a>

[phototransformations]

Not quite sure what you mean by the "55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 which ain't worth talking about for a lot of reasons the numbers above say nothing." Have you used this lens? First, it does start at f/4, it's sharp across its range, very light. Yes, it has a plastic mount and yes it has some vignetting wide open in the middle focal lengths, but next to the 50 1.8, it seems to me it's Nikon's best-bang-for-the-buck lens.

[joe_a2]

I have to agree with David. The 55-200 VR is a fine consumer lens and it has few problems that can't be worked around. If the quality does not suit you, buy a used 80-200 f/2.8 as Hans suggested ($300-350 for an early one-touch, up to about $650-700 for the last two-touch AF-D).

[darius.tulbure]

Sigma 50-150mm is a very interesting lens. The 80-200mm is very bulky and I actually don't plan to shoot sports or wildlife to need the f/2.8.

 

The 55-200mm has plastic mount, the lens rotates during zoom/focus, you can't actually manual focus with it, it feels plasticy... I don't know - I heard too many bad reviews.

[Peter_in_PA]

"Something like: 50-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR for DX cameras at around $500."

 

They'll never make it, as the 70-300 VR is in that price range and is a way better choice than

the lens you're dreaming of would be.

 

If lenses like this are too big and heavy for you, sorry to say this, but maybe a P&S would be

better for you in some situations.

[joe_a2]

Darius....No doubt it feels plasticy since it uses polycarbonates to save weight and cost. Optically it is fine, and I'd be glad to e-mail you some images so you can decide for yourself. Just so you know: the filter does NOT rotate during zoom or focus, and you CAN manually focus with it.

 

But I'm not sure how you will solve your "problem" . A consumer lens like the 55-200VR is too cheap for you, and the high quality 2.8 zooms are too much for you. If you think the only difference between the 55-200VR and the 80-200 f/2.8 is aperture, then you have more to learn. The top-shelf lenses are better in construction, sharpness, contrast, feel, autofocus, etc. Being faster (aperture) is just one attribute.

 

Have you considered a used 70-300 AF-D lens (the one with the ED glass, not the G lens). I found mine to be very nice in the 70-200 range, and it's hard to beat at $175 or so.

 

Personally, if I were you I'd: 1) stop reading reviews, 2) go try the 55-200VR at your local camerasmithy, and 3) form your own opinion. Happy Hunting!!

[darius.tulbure]

<i>If lenses like this are too big and heavy for you, sorry to say this, but maybe a P&S would be better for you in some situations.</i>

<p>

I've made a creer with P&S's. Check out my portfolio - all the photos are taken with a P&S. But I had enough of them. However, my quest is quite simple. Since for the FX format we have the 70-300mm VR wouldn't be logic for Nikkor to launch a special telephoto zoom lens for DX: 50-200mm which on DX is equivalent to 75-300mm on a 35mm camera. The thing is I seldom need focal distance over 300mm equiv. so... why carry the extra weight if I don't need it?

<p>

<i>If you think the only difference between the 55-200VR and the 80-200 f/2.8 is aperture, then you have more to learn.</i>

<p>

If it was so, I would immediately order the 55-200mm. But unfortunatelly it isn't so; there are lots of differences and the optical and built quality are the stones to start with. I'll think further about it... Maybe in the meanwhile Nikkor will make us a surprise.

<p>

Thank you guys for your input! :)

[joe_a2]

Darius....You mis-took my comment. I was pointing out how much better the 80-200 is, in response to your statement that you didn't need the speed of the f/2.8. I have the 55-200VR and the 70-200 2.8, and they both serve useful purposes. No doubt I'd always rather have the 70-200 along, but the 55-200VR does the job when I wish to travel light. And you can't beat the price.

[hash]

Some very impressive images in your portfolio, Darius. I think they prove equipment quality is not such a big factor in getting great images if you are a good photographer. Keep up the good work!

[dan_brown4]

What would be really nice is a 50-150/4 AF-S VR that was total professional grade, and compact to boot.

[lahuasteca]

Hi Darius,

 

I stressed for some time over which mid-range zoom for candid street - 55-200, 70-300

VR, and Sigma 50-150 f 2.8. Of the three, the Sigma, on paper, seemed to be the best

choice, but a little high in price.

 

Solution - none of the above. I found a Nikon 35-135 3.5-4.5AF in mint condition from

KEH, and purchased it for $144 - the price has since risen. OK, the AF is not al that fast in

bad light, but it's sharp, has good background blur, and is 4.5 wide open at the long end.

It has neither AFS or VR, but until a fast good quality mid-range zoom comes along, it will

have to do for me. The build quality is outstanding. Most of the images in the following

album were shot with the D70s/35-135 AF combo:

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/charro_days_2008

[shuo_zhao]

Darius, you should go check out photozone.de's review on the 55-200 VR. It's good for the money and has no fatal flaws.

 

There are only at most 4 "bad" things about the 55-200.

 

#1 Consumer grade built quality.

 

#2 "f/4-5/6" - Not good if you have to shoot moving objects in low light.

 

#3 DX only - If you want to use FX in the future.

 

#4 The corners are not as sharp as the center.

 

To be honest for the lens' $225 price, you don't got much to lose.

Maybe you can get a good prime like the 85 f/1.8 with the money left over.

[darius.tulbure]

Thanks guys for your advice... I don't know - I think I'll wait for a while. A telephoto is not something urgent, you know. Just hope to see new lenses in the Nikkor system.

[mawz]

The 70-300VR is nice and compact and right in your price range. I'd not call it big and heavy by any stretch.

 

There's no reason why Nikon would launch a DX-only telezoom in this pricerange. Now a pro-grade 50-150 or 50-135 would be nice (Nikon used to make a 50-135 f3.5 back in the AI-S era), but the lens you want makes no sense. Either get the consumer 55-200VR, or get the mid-range 70-300VR. Why would Nikon bother making another 55-200? they already make 2 of these.