A&P Extremely disappointed by the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR lense...

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by vbp6us, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I know some of you will say I could have told you that but damn...I didn't know there were plain shitty lens made by Nikon alongside really good ones. :ugh: Anyway...I'm returning this lens. I should have read the negative comments (I never do if there are tons of positive ones). The negative comments summed up my experience today. I just got it today so I'm pretty sad to see it go. Recommendation on lens for indoor purposes?
     
  2. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    indoors? 50/1.8 or 35/2
     
  3. Section8

    Section8 .

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    99,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Golden, CO
    yeah, i've got that lens too, got it as a gift actually so it's hard to complain too much, but it's not great at all. I'm holding on to it for the time being, but i hardly ever use it.
     
  4. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    So it is normal that I can't really focus indoors? I know there is more you need to know but is my lens a dud if I can't really focus on anything (even after I hear the motor focusing) indoors?

    When I go outside it gets better but still not sharp like my previous 18-55mm lens.

    I need to read a book on camera lens.
     
  5. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Ok...thanks. I'm going to get a 18-70mm for short shots and then a longer range lens some other time.
     
  6. Section8

    Section8 .

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    99,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Golden, CO
    I honestly haven't used it much indoors, but sometimes it does hunt around a bit before it grabs focus. I'll throw it on and play with it inside a bit and see how it does to get and idea how bad/good it is and let you know.
     
  7. horselover fat

    horselover fat in your driveway stealing your internet

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    0
    i had the non VR 55-200mm and grabbed some decent shots of cars on the track
     
  8. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Thanks.
     
  9. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
  10. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    the indoor focusing issues are most likely due to how slow the maximum aperture of the lens is. (all lenses focus at max aperture to allow for more light gathering and faster contrast locking.

    If you're going to change up the lens and you want something that will focus faster indoors, you want something at f2.8. There's really no free lunch here.

    The closest you're going to get to the lens your returning is the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. Runs 700 to 900 depending on where you find it.

    It's easily my favorite lens. Stupid sharp, will focus and lock on ANYTHING is just about any light, and is built like a tank.

    I had the 18-70 for a long time as well, and it doesn't lock focus in low light any faster, again, because of the f-stop.
     
  11. Section8

    Section8 .

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    99,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Golden, CO

    what he said :o

    I was just playing with mine inside and it is working ok, but the available light is pretty good in my office.
     
  12. HaloZ

    HaloZ New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Corpus Christi Tx!!

    the problem is you are using the wrong lens indoors.

    i used a the 55-200 VR outside at a race track. and got some pretty decent shots. considering the speed of cars and the mixed lighting conditions.

    i think you are expecting way to much out of a kit lens. and the results from the 70-300 wont be any different then the 55-200.
     
  13. Snowballer

    Snowballer - Blissfully Insane -

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    9,311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
  14. someonenew

    someonenew He's Dangerous

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    104,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    is there a reason you're looking at variable aperture kit lenses?

    why not look for a used 17-55/2.8 or 28-70/2.8
     
  15. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    50/1.8 will be a good lens for you.
     
  16. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    :werd: pisses me off every time i change my focal length, and lose my intended dof in the process... in another year i can dump some more money into gear, and it'll be all lenses this time around :coold:
     
  17. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    17th Street Photo

    Can't really go wrong when it's advertised as new. :noes:
     
  18. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Thanks for your input. Aren't there some cheaper alternatives for the said lens? I don't want to pay more than ~$250-300.

    Thanks
     
  19. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I realize that it won't be THAT different but I have read enough negative reviews to conclude that the 55-200VR is a little clunky with the autofocus. I'm telling you, I turned on the lights and everything and it would struggle focusing. Quite sad. :hsd:

    The 70-300mm is better from what I've read. It is soft in the 300mm range but up to 200 it is sharp.
     
  20. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    So I keep reading this lens is a must have...especially for how cheap it sells for. I had to pick one up.
     
  21. HaloZ

    HaloZ New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    865
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Corpus Christi Tx!!
    but again, it's a mid level lens, good/great performance with good/great light. again in low light situations it will struggle.

    the 70-300 has a 67mm element which should help a lot more to gather light over the 52mm element that the 55-200. it will do the job better, but not sure if you will be happy with it either.


    well, for low light, that and the Sigma 2.8 70-200 which is also in the 600-700 range, are more ideal for where and how you are shooting.

    The more glass a lens has the more light can be taken in and the better low light performance a lens has, Along witha LOW F#s

    here is some advice, try, and i stress it, TRY to get you hands on the lens you are thinking about and test it out. look for a local board, and meet up and compare and test out each other gear.
     
  22. SugarCoatedSour

    SugarCoatedSour OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    53,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glenview, IL
    Not quite sure what you were expecting from $200 telephoto zoom in terms of low-light capability :o

    But yeah, you'll like the 50 1.8 a lot more for your uses
     
  23. vbp6us

    vbp6us New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I know now. :o
     
  24. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I'm extremely disappointed by your use of the word lense
     
  25. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    oh it's lens by the way
     

Share This Page