The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here) - Page 365

some recent ones

 

should have stopped down more here.  I was walking next to them and took this snapshot.  Probably needed to be at around f/3.5 with my 50mm 1.8 lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on of my first times trying out the multiple exposure feature on my camera.  

 

 

 

Edited by hyogen - 5/8/13 at 12:16pm

 

 

I'm a bit short on time, so I'm going to have to throw in an annoying request for advice without properly searching the thread, sorry about that.

 

The Nikon 55-200mm VR seems to be a pretty good price at Amazon UK right now. Do you guys and gals think it would be worth getting as a small, light lens for hiking around, given I already have a Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6? The latter is supposed to be capable of some decent results.

 

The extra range would be nice but it's not something I'm too bothered about. The VR is more enticing but I do have a 70-300mm VR for that; I just don't always want to carry it.

 

I did try the Nikon 55-300mm VR at one point but didn't get on with it. I found the AF a bit slow and prone to hunting. The VR didn't always settle satisfactorily at lower light levels. At the 300mm end I found the lack of permanent manual focus override to be limiting. This may be less of an issue at 200mm.

 

The 55-200 is supposed to focus better but it will be a slower lens (as in f/5.6 at 200mm; that said, ISTR there wasn't a lot in it).

 

So, any advice? Is there any real benefit over the 80-200mm other than VR? Is the 55-200 too good a price to pass up?

 

Of course, my budget for this may get wiped out in the next week!

Edited by anoobis - Yesterday at 12:06 am

I don't see the point having two lenses in the same range like that. If your camera body is fairly recent, speed shouldn't be an issue. Just up the ISO a tad.

Ooh, I recognize where that's from! I walked through there a little bit when I went down to Portland over spring break...

And as to not derail the thread:

 

No impressive pictures with the camera so far, I'm still trying to figure out all this photography jazz, but I'm excited to learn!

Thanks for the reply. I agree, no point in covering the same range. If I got the 55-200 VR I wouldn't keep the 80-200. Just wondering, whether the image quality and usability improvements (?) make it worth changing. Must check size and weight, since that's the point of the 80-200 for me at the moment.