New lens: 55-200mm vr vs. 50-150mm f/2.8

[phatpat]

I have a D50 with the kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8. I've used these 2 for awhile, but now I want something with a little more zoom. I'd like something that works well in low light, but not necessarily moving subjects (where vr wouldn't be much help). Which would be better, the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or the Nikon 55-200mm VR?

I really like my 50mm 1.8, and the Sigma sounds like a good zoom option for low light, but it's a big premium.

[tim11]

You seem to know the answer already since you mentioned VR doesn't help with low light.
If I can't or don't want to use the flash inside the house, the 55-200 F/4.5-5.6 would have been useless. It's the condition when the Sigma 50-150 can just get 1/30sec at widest F/2.8, ISO1600.

[K1W1]

As you can see below it's pretty hard to get any decent shots with the 55-200VR so I would stay well away from that lens! :D:D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2211/2095211316_693796e0ef.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2180/2094333829_49c0d86fed.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/817751180_d6b8d12594.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2267/1563642787_3b8d8ca726.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2236/1780947772_2f6b11aec9.jpg


Seriously this lens is a steal at the price Nikon want for it. It's no 70-200VR but for a couple of hundred dollars you can't go wrong AND it's got 30% more reach than the Sigma.

[tim11]

I can't fault those shots K1W1, but what about in low light and inside the house as required by OP?

[K1W1]

Where does the OP mention inside a house?
The OP has a 50mm 1.8 so I'm not sure of a circumstance inside a house where you couldn't use the old feet propelled zoom to get closer rather than investing in a expensive lens that is slower (than the 50mm) just to save shoe leather.
The 50-200VR really is a steal. The OP could invest in that lens and see whether it does the job. If it doesn't it would be easy to sell at little or no financial loss to fund the Sigma.
On the other hand it's not practicable to buy the Sigma then find that you need more reach and have to sell it or buy another lens to get the extra reach.

[bobc4d]

it doesn't do real well in low light if you can't use a flash - this from experience as I have the lens, expecially if your target is moving, it just isn't fast enough.

it is a good lens, especially at the price, as K1W1 already said. VR and AF for the D40 is a steal for me.

[tim11]

Where does the OP mention inside a house?
...
Alright... he mentioned low light. Inside a house is my own word - still means very low light.

[K1W1]

How low is low as in light?
How about 8pm (just after sunset) in the shade @ 200mm and ISO800 and about a 50% crop?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2380/2061851428_04a56b7017.jpg

[tim11]

What shutter speed is that? There is no exif data.

[phatpat]

Just to clarify, low-light, no flash is key. I'd rather have more light and less reach, honestly.

I know they are both solid lenses. Does VR help at low light or not? I got the impression for a stationary subject, I could use a longer shutter speed with VR.

[tim11]

Phatpat,

How low is low? What's the conditions and what sort of locations are you shooting? etc. Can you post some pix with Exif intact?

And now that you mentioned you want 'less reach' why consider these 2 lenses at all?

[achuang]

The key thing we need to know is whether you're shooting still or moving subjects. If they're still then choose the VR, moving objects then choose the sigma. Or if you just want the ability to blur out the background more then choose the sigma as f2.8 is not just for capturing more light but for greater control over DOF.

[tim11]

Just to clarify, low-light, no flash is key. I'd rather have more light and less reach, honestly.

I know they are both solid lenses. Does VR help at low light or not? I got the impression for a stationary subject, I could use a longer shutter speed with VR.

Stationary objects? I'd get 55-200 VR...
Still if you want 'less reach' why consider these 2 at all?

[swpars]

Here is a stationary subject shot with the 55-200 VR.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2161/1995829337_e2dd48d7b8_b.jpg

EXIF:

Exposure: 0.4 sec (2/5)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 55 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Exposure Bias: -2/3 EV

As you can see, the VR is great for non-moving objects.

[phatpat]

Well the point is I want some zoom, best I've got now is 55mm. I'm just saying 150mm and plenty of light would probably be more useful than 200mm and not enough.

I was leaning towards the 55-200mm, just because it's less expensive and I was hoping it would be "good enough". I'm not making money off these shots, just learning and enjoying myself. I'm often disappointed with my 18-55 in situations that aren't all that sunny, thus I spend a lot of time with my 50mm f/1.8. If the VR doesn't make the 55-200mm much better though, I feel like I might want to just get the Sigma right off the bat.


Stationary objects? I'd get 55-200 VR...
Still if you want 'less reach' why consider these 2 at all?

[phatpat]

My interests are wide, but if it helps, I like end up shooting a lot of the following things: cycling races, conventions (in large, open, dimly lit convention centers), wildlife, and people inside and out. I'm also interested in photojournalism in general.

I take a lot of cycling pictures, but light is usually acceptable, so movement isn't a big concern to me with vr in that situation in particular.

[tim11]

My interests are wide, but if it helps, I like end up shooting a lot of the following things: cycling races, conventions (in large, open, dimly lit convention centers), wildlife, and people inside and out. I'm also interested in photojournalism in general.

I take a lot of cycling pictures, but light is usually acceptable, so movement isn't a big concern to me with vr in that situation in particular.

It's still depends on how much shutter speed you can get and it's anyone's guess how low is low light? What's the max aperture on your current kit lens and what highest can you shoot in the required locations? You can use that as a basis and light meter in your most challenging conditions; i.e. in dim light conventions and low light wild life.

As an example if VR helps: 55-200 VR would have been useless for my use. On ISO1600 and max F/2.8, I can only get 1/30sec. That would be much too low for 55-200, VR or not. I'd only get blurry subjects walking out of the frame.

[K1W1]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1194/647096349_bf67875eb9.jpg

Single light bulb on in the room. 8pm at night in the middle of winter. Handheld.
The first photo I took with the 55-200VR

Camera: Nikon D50
Exposure: 1 sec (1)
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal Length: 80 mm
ISO Speed: 200

[rawpaw18]

[IMG]Exposure: 1 sec (1)


Geez Richard, do you have a pulse?

I am not even going to ask about those men it the background, weird.

[K1W1]

I am not even going to ask about those men it the background, weird.

The greatest sports team in the World doing a Lord of the Rings imitation.

[phatpat]

Sample Shots, I'm just going to paste flickr links if you don't mind:

http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/401514244/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/2063290456/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/1333553854/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/942235225/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/432860966/

[phatpat]

And just to complicate things a little more, any thoughts on the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8? It seems to be a little less expensive used than the 50-150mm. Would the 70-200mm be too large to get good shots handholding it?

[r3g]

Ive never used a 70-200mm but I can tell you the 50-150mm is a great lens. Small, light (relatively), and excellent build quality. If you end up getting it you wont regreat it.

[swpars]

Sample Shots, I'm just going to paste flickr links if you don't mind:

http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/401514244/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/2063290456/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/1333553854/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/942235225/
http://flickr.com/photos/phatpat/432860966/

Pat, I think you'd like the extra 50 mm of the 55-200 VR at the long end for your cycling shots. Low light shouldn't be an issue if these are the typical conditions that you shoot in.

That having been said, the narrower depth of field at f2.8 will make your sports/action shots look more professional, with a nicely blurred background.

[phatpat]

Thanks r3g. According to your sig, you've got both. Any more input? Does the 50-150mm perform that much better to justify the added price?

Thanks for all your help guys, I appreciate it.


Ive never used a 70-200mm but I can tell you the 50-150mm is a great lens. Small, light (relatively), and excellent build quality. If you end up getting it you wont regreat it.

[domenic]

Guys,
Ive been contempleting these exact two lenses. Glad someone else has flagged this up.

I was using my 18-55mm D40 Kit lens to shoot some pics at a Thai Boxing event this last weekend, I struggled a lil with it the faster Sigma at f2.8 would have been the job as I couldnt use flash for obvious reasons.

So had to have the ramp the D40 up to ISO 800, as I was using fast shutter speed. Kit lens just couldnt let in enough light at higher shutter speeds, when indoors.

I think Im gonna purchase both of these lenses, proberlly the Nikkor first.

Would be great to get R3G's input as he own's both of these lenses.

Dom

[r3g]

Thanks r3g. According to your sig, you've got both. Any more input? Does the 50-150mm perform that much better to justify the added price?

Thanks for all your help guys, I appreciate it.


Short answer is yes the 50-150 is worth every penny if you need a fast zoom. But choosing between the 2 will depend on what you want to use it for. I had the 55-200mm first but i keep it for when i need a zoom but dont need a fast one (cuz the 55-200 light as air in comparison). If your like me and do indoor sports and or portraits id definitely go for the Sigma. If not the Nikkor is an awesome lens.

[XaiLo]

r3g, where you been hiding:confused: :D

[fionndruinne]

And Xai, when are you going to add another few bucks and maybe up that 4%?:D

[XaiLo]

The holidays are doing the scrooge to me:mad: lmao I'm looking fowardr to a good start next year. :D

[r3g]

r3g, where you been hiding:confused: :D




Work during the holiday season leaves very little time to play :[

[mugsisme]

I had the 55-200mm first but i keep it for when i need a zoom but dont need a fast one (cuz the 55-200 light as air in comparison).

I asked a similar question when I was thinking of ditching my 18-200 in favor of the 50-150 lens. I forgot who told me, but someone said that there is very little difference between the amount of zoom in 150 and 200. OK, I found it, and r3g, YOU were the one who said it!!!

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35433&page=2

I am still dragging my feet on this lens. I am leaning towards the faster lens. I think it just does so much more. I may eventually get the Sigma 50-150 and then add the Nikkor 70-300. I am just not 100% convinced with the IQ of the pictures with the Nikkor lens. I have heard people say that is is an OK lens for the money.

[phatpat]

I asked a similar question when I was thinking of ditching my 18-200 in favor of the 50-150 lens. I forgot who told me, but someone said that there is very little difference between the amount of zoom in 150 and 200. OK, I found it, and r3g, YOU were the one who said it!!!

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35433&page=2


Nice link, I've been looking for something like that. I've decided that I will get the 50-150mm. It's just kind of hard to justify the expense right now. I'll probably wait a month or two to get it, and even then I might buy the nikon 55-200. It's hard when I think I can get the nikon and some other $400 gadget for the price of the sigma, but I know if I get the Nikon there will be more than one time where I get frustrated with its performance and wish I had shelled out...

[r3g]

It's just kind of hard to justify the expense right now.



It wont be when you start shooting with it... Trust ;). I havent touched my 55-200mm since Ive had the Sigma. Not the the 55-200mm isnt a great lens but it doesnt hold a candle to the 50-150mm.

[phatpat]

I thought I'd post this here before looking elsewhere because there are a few of you with the sigma already. Is there a good bag that would fit my D50 with the 50-150mm attached? I'd like something not too bulky, and something that I could access the camera without taking off the bag.

The lowepro slingshot 200 looks good, but it seems like the lens might be too big, and the 300 seems a little excessive for me.

Thanks