I bought a D60 kit last october and it came with 2 nikkor lenses (18-55mm and 55-200mm AF-S DX). I wasnt really considering the VR lenses before but I heard a lot of good reviews online. I am thinking of selling both of my DX lenses and get the VR lenses. Is it worth it? I saw on ebay that they sell 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR lenses for a cheap price but its a factory demo lens... is this good?
As I recall the D60 was only being sold with the 18-55mm VR lens, although the 55-200mm lenses weren't always VR, depended on the reseller. Used copies of the 18-55 and 55-200, VR or not, are worth much money. Nobody can tell you if a lens is a good deal or not without knowing the price, "cheap price" is not very definitive.
Whether or not VR is useful depends a lot on what sort of photography you do, but many folks do find VR quite useful. It is generally more useful on longer focal lengths than shorter ones, but there are situations where it's useful with just about any focal length.
Factory demo - is this Cameta Camera? They're a well known, highly reputable source. Usually their prices are pretty good, if not unbeatable, although nobody's perfect.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
thanks for the reply.. i am a newbie in photography and i usually have various subjects but i like to take portaits and landscapes... yeah its cameta... i think i will probably sell my 55-200mm and upgrade to the VR...
VR reduces the effect of your shaking the camera, so it's a feature that can improve your photos in some situations, specifically shooting stationary objects, handheld, in poor lighting, where the shutter becomes so slow that camera shake is visible in the photo. Because camera shake is a bigger problem with longer lenses, VR is a lot more useful on a telephoto (55-200mm) than on the standard (18-55mm) zoom.
Is it worth upgrading? Depending on how you use the lenses, probably yes for the 55-200 and probably no for the 18-55.
There aren't that many situations where you'd use an 18-55 to shoot a stationary object in low light and can't use a tripod or flash, probably museums and churches being the best application for this lens. To mitigate the cost of the VR in the 18-55, Nikon used cheaper glass (they removed the ED element you have in your 18-55) so unless you do a lot of museums and churches, I'd say don't bother with the 18-55VR.
The 55-200 is a different story, probably useful in most situations you'd use the lens, but unless your photos are showing camera shake issues, then don't expect any improvement in your pictures. You're probably better off saving more or putting all your money towards a better telephoto, like the $450 70-300 VR.
There are a lot of 70-300 zooms out there. Nikon has made 3 different ones in recent years, but the newest (and most expensive) VR version is in a different class than any other you'll find.
If $450 is out of your range, then the one to get is probably the Sigma 70-300 APO, but be sure you get the one with the built-in focus motor, which should run somewhere around $200. Is this better than the Nikon 55-200 VR? It depends on what you want to use it for. The Sigma 70-300 give more reach and a 1:2 macro mode, but the 55-200 is smaller, lighter, has VR and my impression is, better image quality. If you're going for wildlife or macro, I'd say get the 70-300. If you just want a general purpose lens to add more reach, then the 55-200VR is probably better.
>actually planning to use a good macro lens for the wildlife pics...
Perhaps you could explain this because this is not something the wildlife photogs would do. Are you planning to take photos of insects or photos of larger creatures like birds, snakes, etc.
Also, be aware that while the Sigma 70-300 will give you 1:2(half life size) magnification, the image quality will not be anywhere near what you would get with a dedicated macro lens. Dedicated macro lenses have very impressive image quality.