What is use of Nikkor 55-200 VR when one have Nikkor 18-55?

[legolas]

Hi
thank you for reading my post
can some one please explain me what is benefits of a Nikkor 55-200 VR when some one already has a Nikkor 18-55?
I think both of them has same magnifying power (almost 3 200/55 =~ 55/18) and even the 55-200 has smaller aperture which make it unusable for some cases?

Please let me know what will be differences of photos that these two lens take in the following condition:

1-A landscape photo when we want to have a big angle in the photo with a good quality.
2- photo of bee or other small animals (Macro photography) from close distance.

3-Photo of usual wild animals or birds from a fair distance that the bird does not fly away.


Thank you very much.

[TheWengler]

Is this a trick question? They have different focal ranges. The 18-55 is better for landscapes. I believe the 18-55 also has a better magnification ratio which makes it better for macro. The 55-200 is better for shooting subjects that are farther away but probably not long enough for most wildlife. The 55-200 is also a stabilized lens.

[erichlund]

Hi
thank you for reading my post
can some one please explain me what is benefits of a Nikkor 55-200 VR when some one already has a Nikkor 18-55?
I think both of them has same magnifying power (almost 3 200/55 =~ 55/18) and even the 55-200 has smaller aperture which make it unusable for some cases?

Please let me know what will be differences of photos that these two lens take in the following condition:

1-A landscape photo when we want to have a big angle in the photo with a good quality.
2- photo of bee or other small animals (Macro photography) from close distance.

3-Photo of usual wild animals or birds from a fair distance that the bird does not fly away.


Thank you very much.

The first rule of dSLR should be that you drop all reference to that magnifying power reference. You have to think in terms of the focal lengths of the lens. With your old camera, they gave you a 35mm equivalent range for the lens on the camera. Typically, a 3x camera has a range of 35 to 105mm. So forget the 3x and think in terms of 35 to 105.

Now, you can directly compare that to these lenses. The first is an 18-55. On an APS-c sensor using a 1.5 crop, that's equivalent to 27-82.5mm. Compared to the typical P&S I indicated above, that's a little wider angle at its widest, but doesn't have as much telephoto at the long end. BUT...you can take that lens off, and put on the 55-200. That lens starts at a 35mm equivalent of 82.5 and goes to 300mm equivalent. So with both lenses, you have a range from 27mm-300mm equivalent. On the old point and shoot, you had 35mm to 105mm equivalent. You can see that the two lenses on the dSLR give you a much wider range than that 3x camera. Actually, 300 / 27 gives you approximately an 11x range.

BUT, as I said, drop the magnifying power and think in terms of the millimeter ranges. It will help you understand dSLR better.

As for your photo types:
1. Landscape: Use the 18-55 set to 18 (or more for proper framing).
2. Macro: Buy another lens with macro capability, because neither of these has it.
3. Wildlife: 55-200, set long (200). However, this is not really long enough for most wildlife. It's generally OK for the zoo and pets, and you occasionally will get close enough, but I'm not sure I'd go hunting Lions or Grizzlies with this lens. For birding, I'm not sure they really make a lens that any birder is really satisfied with, but 300-400 is a satisfactory starting point if you are stealthy. I thing what they really want is a 1200mm f1.2 that weighs in at say 15 ounces (so they can get good shots of pigs flying through the frozen tundra of Hell, which is when you would see that lens :rolleyes:).

[Rooz]

you can also use extension tubes or close up filters for macro.