 Incredible Bargain - Sharp Lens with VR for $250! |
| Review Date: April 13, 2007 |
| Reviewer: Henry, New Brunswick, NJ |
This lens is sharp even at wide apertures, the VR (image stabilization) works great, autofocus speed is more than acceptable, and it it is very light and compact. The fact that it costs $250 and has effective VR is pretty amazing - no other company offers a lens with this feature for anywhere near this price.
As for image quality, search the various internet photo sites, such as dpreview and nikonians for sample photos taken with this lens by real users. The results are impressive! My copy produces similar results. The previous reviewer must have a bad sample.
Of course, the lens is slow (like almost all consumer zoom lenses), in that its widest aperture is smaller than a professional zoom or prime lens, so it's not a good choice for action photography in lower light conditions (like indoor sports without flash or outside sports at dusk). But a fast telephoto zoom will cost at least three times as much and weigh a ton.
I give the lens 5 stars based on a combination of image quality, value, and compactness/lightness. |
VR really works and the price can't be beat.
|
| Review Date: June 7, 2007 |
| Reviewer: K. Plourde, |
| I had the 55-200mm non VR version for about 5 months, sold it to essentally recover my cost, and bought the VR version as a replacement. The non VR version was very compact and light, and produced excellent photos, but the slightly larger VR version is so much more usable I don't miss the other lens at all. The VR works as advertised and allows me to take pictures at 3 times or more lower shutter speeds than the non VR version. While I would love the 18-200mm VR for the convenience, I will never be able to justify the $750 price, so my 18-55mm kit lens and this lens will likely cover my needs as long as I own my camera. I also seriously considered the 70-300mm VR, but couldn't accept twice the price for only 50% more reach. And at twice the length of the 55-200mm non VR version, it would be too awkward for me to carry around. I am very satisfied with this 55-200mm VR lens and if you are considering it, please give it a try. You will not be dissapointed. |
Excellent Bargain VR Lens!
|
| Review Date: April 13, 2007 |
| Reviewer: Arthur Jones, Iron Mountain Lake, Mo |
| I've read both good and bad about this lens. But I wanted the features such as VR and decided to go ahead and get it. It arrived yesterday and I am very happy to tell you that its well worth the price and more. Its sharp from edge to edge and fast to focus. I have two other VR lenses, both I'm extremely happy with and this one falls in with them. I'm using this lens on a D80 and I've tried it several different conditions including overcast sky, moderate sunlight and indoor lighting and its given excellent results every time. |
the VR works perfectly
|
| Review Date: June 20, 2007 |
| Reviewer: Douglas H. Haden, Ridgecrest, CA United States |
I was at first disappointed in my new Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX VR lens. Then I found the VR on/off switch on the side. Since then I have been pleased with the lens' VR capability (what I bought it for).
My previous digital camera was a Canon PowerShot S1 IS. Without being aware of it, I became used to that little camera's image stabilization. I casually took handheld shots that came out tack sharp. I didn't realize how dependent I was on the image stabilization until a few months ago when I got my Nikon D80. I love the camera but was driven to using a tripod for most of my shots. I was taking close-up photos for publication and had to have perfect sharpness. And, I have two kittens; kittens beg impromptu, handheld shots. I was excited when I found this lens because of the low cost.
You really can take photographs three stops slower than is possible without a VR lens. That means more depth of field for close-up shots (used with a filter-like close-up lens). I'm taking my first manual mode outdoor photos so the extra speed range helps me out of tight spots.
The rest of the lens (construction, zoom range, weight) are just fine. One unexpected advantage is the lens' 52mm filter size. Most of my lens accessories (close up lens set, teleconverter, extension tube set) are 52mm.
|
The obvious next step for Nikon D40x owners...
|
| Review Date: September 24, 2007 |
| Reviewer: nicjaytee, London |
| If you own a Nikon D40x with its stock autofocus zoom lens rated at 18-55 mm new digital style and equivalent to 26-83 mm old style, this is the obvious next step purchase. Rated at 55-200 mm new style and equivalent to 83-300 mm old style it's small, light and really does cut out camera shake to allow genuine "point & shoot" at its higher focal lengths, giving you a "tripod-less", perfectly matched combination of two autofocus Nikkor lenses covering a full 18-200 mm new style (26-300 mm old style). Just perfect... and, for the price, stunningly good value. |
Great lens, great price, make sure you get the VR model
|
| Review Date: August 18, 2007 |
| Reviewer: Marc A. Healy, Elgin, IL United States |
| My camera came with a 17-55mm kit lens and I was salivating over the idea of saving up and getting the 17-200mm lens. The quality of the kit lens itself became apparent when I took identical pictures with different lenses and the kit was clearly better. But that elusive 17-200mm- it cost 750 bucks (at least) IF you could find it in stock, and reports were that the quality was uneven- some individual lenses worked better than others. I don't have the option of trying out several lenses- I have to order online and get what I get. So when THIS baby came out, I tried it and loved it. Yes, you have to lug an extra lens around and swap it out, and if that's an issue for you then take your chances with the more expensive one. But for a fraction of the cost I expanded the range of my camera. Usually I'm in a situation where I'll probablly only need one or the other- the kit lens for indoors or parties, the telephoto for going to the zoo or camping or whatnot. My only warning: Earlier models of this typoe of lens don't have the vibration reduction. You might find the same focal range in a Nikor lens for less money, but it probably won't have "VR" attached to the name. This is a cery handy feature when shooting at the far end of the zoom scale without a tripod. I highly recommend making sure you get a lense with this feature. (Note: I'm not an expert, just a hobbyist who shoots a lot of pictures.) |
Sharp, small, light and CHEAP
|
| Review Date: May 16, 2007 |
| Reviewer: R. Brooks, Greensboro, NC |
| Remember when the non-VR version of this lens was over $270? For $235, I got this beauty from Amazon just before my daughter's college graduation. From across the football stadium where the ceremony was held, I got exceptionally sharp images, so clear and free of distortion that I can crop up to 75% without losing detail. I also have a Nikkor 28-200mm zoom and the 55-200 puts it to shame at long focal lengths, with VR engaged. Prior to the graduation, I tried some indoor shots of her department awards. These turned out OK, but would have been better had I relied more on the VR and a slower shutter speed. My only real caveat is the plastic construction will not hold up to abuse, so take care to protect the lens mount and front filter threads. This is not a professional lens, but is a low-cost solid performer for serious hobbyists and beginners alike. A must-have addition to your kit lens and much sharper than the 70-300G. I was waiting for the 18-200 VR to become both more available and less expensive, but do you really need the VR at short focal lengths anyway? Save $500-600 and get this one! |
What they say
|
| Review Date: November 28, 2007 |
| Reviewer: Carlgo, Carmel Valley, CA |
Overwhelming positive responses for a reason. The VR is almost magic in that you can take sharp photos in dim light. It only cost me $203, doesn't weigh much and seems to be as sharp as a small format photo can be.
It makes a good portrait lens. I was chasing kids around the yard trying to get good shots with good backrounds and all that. The length of the lens allowed me to back off and not have to jamb a short lens into their little faces. I got good exposures, depth of field (entire faces in focus) and actually got a number keeper photos out of it.
Do I wish this was a wider lens for lower light? Not yet, it seems fine for almost anything I would shoot. A pro shooting in caves for National Geographic would want something wider. I don't go into caves ever, never. There have been some negative comments on the ability to focus on fast-moving things like aircraft. I have no experience there. Aren't they at the infinity level anyway? Wouldn't you want a longer lens anyway?
Is it as nice as those old metal lenses? No, I love that super-precision feel that a great metal lens provides. I have mounted my old 55mm micro-nikkor on my D40 and it is indeed nice, but damn heavy, not VR and not automatic. I'll never get rid of it. The precision of this plastic lens isn't bad and it is small, light and affordable
Now I am a VR freak and would only buy a super wide angle without that feature.
I recommend the 55-200 VR (careful- there is a non-VR version). |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
Sorry you must register to comments in this post