Nikon DSLR camera lenses question - Chicagoland Sportbikes
Chicagoland Sportbikes
 
Photographers Corner This forum is specifically for talk about camera's and photography. question about a camera or how to get that perfect shot post it here.

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-10-2009, 11:59 AM Thread Starter
Another Polak
 
c2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Elk Grove, IL
Posts: 2,495
Location: Elk Grove, IL
Sportbike: '05 CBR 600RR
Years Riding: Since '04
How you found us: Friend
           
Nikon DSLR camera lenses question

Hello all,
I started to look more into digital photography,
and now I need some longer lens to get some wildlife.
I'm looking at Nikon 55-200vr (189$) vs 70-300VR (449)
but the difference 260$. How big of a difference between those 2 lenses in shooting?
Any experience with those two models. Thx
I would buy a use one if I could.

" Never drive faster, than your guardian angel can fly."

My Garage

PSN: chamala2000

Peter
c2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-10-2009, 12:40 PM
BSB > WSBK > MotoGP
 
shadrach's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Loop & Cary
Posts: 11,948
Location: South Loop & Cary
Sportbike: '02 GSXR 600 / '98 CBRF3
Years Riding: Since '03
How you found us: Google
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by c2000 View Post
Hello all,
I started to look more into digital photography,
and now I need some longer lens to get some wildlife.
I'm looking at Nikon 55-200vr (189$) vs 70-300VR (449)
but the difference 260$. How big of a difference between those 2 lenses in shooting?
Any experience with those two models. Thx
I would buy a use one if I could.
I have the 70-300VR but not the 55-200. From what I know the 55-200 is a cheap lens and not very verstile, as the 55-200 range is a bit limiting. You'd be switching between the kit and 55-200 lens a lot more than I think you'd want to for just shooting stuff. That said, there isn't much of a difference between 200 and 300mm; it's sounds like a lot (100mm) but when you see it for yourself it can be a bit underwhelming.

I would highly recommend getting the 18-200VR lens as it's so versitle that I shoot with it almost 90% of the time. It can be had for around the price of the 70-300. I bought mine used for $500 for a member here (Mort) and it's a great lens.

Jeff
NESBA #311
'02 GSXR600
'98
Smokin' Joe's F3
shadrach is offline  
post #3 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Serious inquiries only
 
Mort82's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Never-Neverland
Posts: 13,776
Location: Never-Neverland
Sportbike: Specialized Allez Comp; Gkotlin's SV650
Years Riding: Always learning
How you found us: Google
           
Send a message via AIM to Mort82
Shit, I thought I sold it for 6...

I need a good zoom...

the 55-200 feels like a cheap ass plastic toy IMO. I would go for the 70-300, I know a few people who use it and like it
Mort82 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-10-2009, 12:53 PM
BSB > WSBK > MotoGP
 
shadrach's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Loop & Cary
Posts: 11,948
Location: South Loop & Cary
Sportbike: '02 GSXR 600 / '98 CBRF3
Years Riding: Since '03
How you found us: Google
           
Also, the 18-200 is a slighty faster lens and works well in lower light, but the 70-300 is almost useless for shooting motion in low light.

Here's some samples from my D40 with the 70-300.

It does work well on a sunny track:




And here's an example of why the 300's little extra reach is nice to have:


In the right conditions I will say that lens does produce some great shots:


But, the 18-200 does have some excellent reach for a compact lens as well.


I wouldn't expect the cheaper 55-200 to produce results like the 18-200 can. I really like the 70-300 but I mainly bought it for track days and my trip to Alaska last summer; I don't think I've used it since the Indy MotoGP.

Jeff
NESBA #311
'02 GSXR600
'98
Smokin' Joe's F3
shadrach is offline  
post #5 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-10-2009, 01:07 PM
Jewrassic Park Runaway
 
samal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Buffalo Grove
Posts: 2,633
Location: Buffalo Grove
Sportbike: 2008 Yamaha FZ1 Sleeper
Years Riding: I quit smoking 6 years ago
How you found us: www.chicagorussianriders.com
           
I had Sigma 18-200 (actualy still have it) f/3.5-6.3 and found it pretty useless in motion/lowlight conditions - too slow. It is convinient to have a superzoom on all the time, but for good action shots, fast lens is a must
samal is offline  
post #6 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-12-2009, 01:56 PM Thread Starter
Another Polak
 
c2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Elk Grove, IL
Posts: 2,495
Location: Elk Grove, IL
Sportbike: '05 CBR 600RR
Years Riding: Since '04
How you found us: Friend
           
I found a guy who wants to sell that lens (55-200) locally
6 months old used 3 times. He's was asking 160$,
than he dropped to 150$ but he might go for 140$
what do you guys think, should I go for it?

" Never drive faster, than your guardian angel can fly."

My Garage

PSN: chamala2000

Peter

Last edited by c2000; 01-12-2009 at 02:25 PM.
c2000 is offline  
post #7 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 09:11 AM
Registered User
 
VTEC_EATER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waukegan, Illinois
Posts: 404
Location: Waukegan, Illinois
Sportbike: 2004 GSXR750 (street/track), 2003 ZX6R 636 (track)
Years Riding: I think Im on my 3rd now
How you found us: From other web forums (SBN, NESBA)
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by c2000 View Post
I found a guy who wants to sell that lens (55-200) locally
6 months old used 3 times. He's was asking 160$,
than he dropped to 150$ but he might go for 140$
what do you guys think, should I go for it?
No.

I wouldn't take a 55-200 for free. I would maybe pay $140 for the 55-200 VR. In fact that's what I did. Much better optics than the crappy 55-200 (old version w/o VR). You can buy them refurbished from Nikon for that price.

Its an okay lens. The VR is pretty good on it, but its still a slow telephoto lens with a slow AFS motor that will not get be able to get you photos like this:



Its not bad for a cheap, everyday, walkaround telephoto and that's what it is designed for. I wouldn't buy it though if you are looking to use it for sports, or action shots. There is a reason why its only only $185 (new) and not $1600 like the 70-200/2.8 VR.

Tom DeCoste aka "Tommy Tarmac"
Nesba #611 Advanced
VTEC_EATER is offline  
post #8 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 10:15 AM
Weapons Tech Guru
 
Ofc. Ponch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MUNSTER, IN.
Posts: 5,153
Location: MUNSTER, IN.
Sportbike: Borrowed Ones
Years Riding: 11
How you found us: through SBN
           
Send a message via Yahoo to Ofc. Ponch
VTEC,

I'm looking for a new "better" lense for the D50...

what should I get?

Arrogance has to be earned.
Serve, Protect and Break a ......
Ofc. Ponch is offline  
post #9 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 10:22 AM
Sunny and 70
 
auditech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,410
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Sportbike: 2008 Tuono 1000 R
Years Riding: 12 years
How you found us: GSXR.com
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ofc.Ponch View Post
VTEC,

I'm looking for a new "better" lense for the D50...

what should I get?
What are you using right now?

What are you going to be shooting (with the camera )?

No expert here, just interested in what others are recommending and why.

I recently got back into photography with a D80 and have a lot of the same questions.
auditech is offline  
post #10 of 10 (permalink) Old 01-16-2009, 10:31 AM
Weapons Tech Guru
 
Ofc. Ponch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MUNSTER, IN.
Posts: 5,153
Location: MUNSTER, IN.
Sportbike: Borrowed Ones
Years Riding: 11
How you found us: through SBN
           
Send a message via Yahoo to Ofc. Ponch
I'm using the kit lense that comes with the D50 and for general stuff it's in my opinion "OK" at best.

For Macro/Distance I'm using a TAMRAC 75-300. For macro shooting this is great with my light box and tri-pod. Pics seems crisp and clear. All the detail I'm looking to get out of it is there. With the long range shooting I find I loose a lot of depth if that makes sense.

I know a part of it is my photography skills, but I also feel a small part is the lenses.

Kinda lke guns... sometimes a realy good gun can make an OK shooter do a little better.
I might be completely wrong though.

Arrogance has to be earned.
Serve, Protect and Break a ......
Ofc. Ponch is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chicagoland Sportbikes forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome