is this the best 55-200 mm lens
1360609
I don't say it is the best because it does not have VR in it. But is worth buying to use in a good light condition.
1360610
No, I would highly suggest going for the VR version for a few extra bucks. This is obsolete. I also would suggest getting a new version as this lens is old and many used ones won't operate correctly.
1360611
The old saying you get what you pay for would apply in this situation. The VR vibration reduction would be the better choice.
220612
Yes I would take the 24-70 2.8 because of the speed. This lens is my go to lens, it is a work horses. I back it up with my 70-200 2.8.
963789
55-210 like others has said should fit your needs. I wouldn't go with the 18-200 since you should already have the 18-55 with your kit. By the way, I use 18-55 for 90% of my shots. I bought the 55-210 myself, It's cheaper and in my test before I bought it, it has better contrast and IQ then the 18-200. The 18-55 and 55-210 are the only lens I take with me when I go on vacation. Also 18-200 is a lot heaver. FYI: Once you pass the beginning phase with this camera, get you some adaptors for other lens and it pretty much open a new world of options on photography. Have fun out there!
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
1270620
I own all three of those lenses, and personally I prefer the 18-140 for my D7100 as my walk-around lens for DX. I have not used either the 18-55 or 55-200 since purchasing the 18-140mm. When I need more reach than the 18-140mm can provide I use the 70-300mm which has very fast focusing on a DX body.
430638
I agree - it's a four thirds lens that I don't think is optimised for m43. My other non-optimised four thirds lenses can be v.slow to focus so I don't use for birds in flight etc. It's almost double the weight and longer. Not sure what speed it is at 150, but it's rated as f3.5-6.3 so probably pretty close. Min focus distance is pretty similar - around .5 m.
963788
Here's the basics: the smaller the "mm" number, the closer the subject. So a 200mm is the best you'll get for far away. 55mm is good for portraits from 10' away, and an 18mm is good for indoor/small space shots.
1873698
This lens has the large range (18-200mm), this it is very very important for multiuse lens..
495811
Hi, I have a lens 55-200 for Sony Alpha, Could you tell me what is correct the size for it?
1270623
Hi, before buying this 55-200 I would rent the lens and try. After checking if this is enough for softball games, I would decide what to buy.You might be able to find similar prices for the 100-300mm as well.
1736483
It's worth every penny, especially if you take portrait shots. I do not have the 18-200, but I have the 16-85 VRII. While the 16-85 is a great lens for outdoor shots, landscape and group photos, the quality of portrait I get from the 85 1.8 (or any prime lens for that matter) is way above any all around zoom. Most pictures I take with this lens are worth keeping.
1351164
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera. If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own.
1150129
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken; I own the 24-105mm f/4L, but am looking for the best option for the extra focal length that makes portraits and candids really pop! As far as I can tell, even though the 200mm f/2.8 is well-built, people seem to have an almost religious zeal for the 135mm, making it all the more attractive.
1547551
This lens is not a sports lens. You'll be too far from any action to even when cropped. The 70-200 f2.8 is one of the best sport lenses for up close. If you want even closer I'd recommend buying the 300mm or 400mm but its might be easier to buy a tube extender that will increase the range of your lens. This lens is great for landscape, portraits, and Weddings.
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.
919086
18-300 mm photos are pretty good. With this you do not have to be changing lenses (55 - 300mm). The stabiliser work fine, light is good. Wide angle do not work fine.
1380700
It is a new design that is smaller and lighter. Some might argue that the older design is a little sharper, but I am satisfied with the newer design as an "all purpose travel lens". For critical work, I would use my 70-200.