Nikkor DX 55-200mm

[stripe]

Good evening,

Does anyone around here own/use the Nikkor DX 55-200mm? I am heading to Africa in August, and at the moment I only have my 18-55mm kit lens to go with my D5000. I am starting to think I will need a little more focal range to capture some really great shots.

I am on a tight budget, and from most of the reviews I have read it seems like the best value telephoto out there, no?

Thoughts? Opinions? Alternatives?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Matt,

I'm not familiar with this lens, see my signature for the ones I have, but ...

Sorry to labour the point, but Nikon make many versions of this lens (or have over the years), and especially on retailers websites, they don't always make the difference as obvious as they should.

Do ensure you get the "AF-S" one, not AF-D to save a few bucks. Also, if you have an AF-S choice of one with VR and one without, personally I'd go for one with VR.

Just trying to help avoid a disappointment.

Personally I'd recommend the 70-300mm VR, but that's over twice what this is (at about £410), so may be a step too far.

[Mike in UK]

Hi Matt,
Just a quick reply.
You will definitely need something longer than 55 and the 55-200 is a reasonable performer for a budget.
In my experience its a little soft at 200, but I like the VR. I use the lens for street candid shots and have taken it on my travels, although I don't do wildlife. I would agree however that the 70-300 is probably a better option for wildlife on a budget. Have a look at www.photozone.de for reviews on the lenses for APS-C Nikons, including other manufacturers.

[Shadowman]

I have both the AF-S VR DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED and the AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED. Purchased the 70-400 because I wanted more focal range. I considered trading in or selling the
55-200mm but I recently purchased a circular polarizing filter, couldn't find one for the 70-300mm and didn't want to wait for it to be ordered, so I will hang onto this lens for a while. Both provide adequate coverage, the 70-300 would be the better option although about $150.00US more in cost. I would like to move to the next focal range but $950.00 about the best price for a non Nikkor lens, the Nikkor 80-400mm costs about $1,400, and the smaller aperture range won't give you any better performance unless you are shooting in the daylight. The 55-200mm is a decent lens but you will find yourself wanting more range, especially for wildlife photography, so get the 70-400mm if it's in your price range.

Hi Matt,
Just a quick reply.
You will definitely need something longer than 55 and the 55-200 is a reasonable performer for a budget.
In my experience its a little soft at 200, but I like the VR. I use the lens for street candid shots and have taken it on my travels, although I don't do wildlife. I would agree however that the 70-300 is probably a better option for wildlife on a budget. Have a look at www.photozone.de for reviews on the lenses for APS-C Nikons, including other manufacturers.