Nikon 55-200 VR lens or 55-200 AF

[ciara]

I have just bought a Nikon D40 and the 18-55 DX comes with it. I want to buy a further lens to capture the bears, whales etc!!!!

The 18-200 is out of my price range at the moment - I can get the 55-200AF for £126 - managers offer with the camera - the VR will cost me abt £170. Which one should I go for? - remember I am a amateur++++!!!Thanks for any advice

[ddonalds]

I have Canon equipment, so I'm not helpful. BUT - go to photo.net - there's a bunch of Nikon gurus on there, and they give advice on all the different equipment.... Good luck!!:D

[RVRCLC]

I use the AF-S Nikkor 24-120 and find it quite satisfactory for every situation that interests me. I don't want to carry lots of heavy equipment, either.

 

I have been to Alaska several times and have never wished for a longer lens. Sometimes, I have wished for a bit wider one, but a series of shots to be put together in a panorama has solved that problem.

 

Remember that a longer lens magnifies motion, a whale watching boat is not rock solid steady! I was sorry I took a camera on the whale watch. I missed getting a really good look at some spectacular sights while the camera was aimed in the wrong direction!

 

Remember the multiplier (1.5?) in a digital camera that makes your lens longer than labeled. (Someone help us here!) I have forgotten the whole story.

[RVRCLC]

The most important thing you can do for that camera is get a UV filter on it to protect the lens.

[THerdfan89]

I returned from Alaska on June 25, 2007, I have the Nikon D50 and was using the AF-S NIKKOR55-200mm, I do not believe the lense was strong enough for the long shots, however, did get plenty of great panoramic shots thou.

[fcorey]

I have just bought a Nikon D40 and the 18-55 DX comes with it. I want to buy a further lens to capture the bears, whales etc!!!!

The 18-200 is out of my price range at the moment - I can get the 55-200AF for £126 - managers offer with the camera - the VR will cost me abt £170. Which one should I go for? - remember I am a amateur++++!!!Thanks for any advice

 

Ciara if you were here in the states I'd suggest renting a lens for the trip. Not sure if thats an option for you. Search on google and you can find some websites for rentals.

Like you I am an amateur, over the years I've accumulated 2 Nikon bodies, a trusty D50 and a new D80. For our trip I am trying to lug less gear myself. I am taking the D80, a 12-24 , 18-55 kit lens, and my 70-300VR that I just got.

If you are set on the 55-200 range then go for the VR lens. The 2nd generation VR really does make a difference, its a nice lens but it may not have the telephoto reach you may desire.

Don't worry about the 18-200, its way overpriced right now for the optical quality, and for those that may disagree with me, yes I have used one on several occasions (rentals) that did not impress me in the least. Other than the overall range and VR there is really nothing exceptional about the lens. It is better than 18-200 from sigma and tamron but superzooms have lots of deficiencies and the Nikkor is no exception to that.

I recently rented the 80-400VR, 70-200 2.8 VR, and the 70-300VR, the 80-400 was beyond my budget right now, and super heavy like the 70-200, also it doesn't focus very fast. However I was considering renting it for my Alaska trip due to the 400mm reach. Then I tried the 70-300, what a fast super lens. The VR works well on both, but the 70-300 is much faster at focusing because its an AFS lens.

You can see some sample shots I took with the D50 and 70-300VR rental here, they are the whale watch photos, http://fcorey.shutterfly.com the photos of Graham my nephew were taken with the 80-400VR rental.

The D40 is a great little camera, if I didn't have such large hands I think I would have gone for one of those myself. The D40 with the 55-200VR will produce some beautiful pictures. I hope you enjoy it and your trip, let us know what you decide and post some shots on your return :)

[ciara]

Thankyou everyone for replies

 

RVRCLC - which uv lens should I get -Nikon 52mm UV L37C Filter or Neutral clear filter?

 

Frank - I have looked into hiring but can't find any uk sites that hire the one I want

thanks again

[RVRCLC]

Filter: Either one would work, I just want you to protect your lens coating from seaspray, fingerprints, dust, etc. Ruin a filter and you are out about $25, ruin a lens and you are out several hundred dollars. Your local camera shop can help you with your choice.

[fcorey]

Remember the multiplier (1.5?) in a digital camera that makes your lens longer than labeled. (Someone help us here!) I have forgotten the whole story.

 

35mm film or full size sensor DSLRs have a 36mm x 24mm area that they expose, most normal DSLR have a sensor that is something like 24mm x 15mm (APS) which results in the multiplier of 1.6. If you look at an image taken by two cameras,one film, one dslr, both using same exact lens, the photo from the dslr looks closer than the film because the smaller sensor captured only the center of the frame in comparison to the 35mm film.

 

Then there is the whole megapixel war where you have many compaines making point and shoot cameras rated at 7 or 10MP, however you need to realize that those little camers use an even smaller sensor than APS. This means you are cramming more pixels per mm however it doesnt mean you'll get better picture quality than a 6-8MP DSLR. The DSLR will generally have better optics which will give it an edge, also being more costly in most cases will have the manufacturers best technology at that time in them. If what you want is simple snapshots most new point and shoot cameras will serve you well. If you want to capture fast action, or photograph in low light, or produce large prints then maybe a dslr is a better fit.