Header banner
Revain logoHome Page

Reviews

Global ratings 48
  • 5
    26
  • 4
    18
  • 3
    4
  • 2
    0
  • 1
    0

Type of review

Revainrating 5 out of 5

Satisfied with the purchase one hundred percent, I recommend the product for everyone.

At first, I rated it a C grade, but a C grade should be given to me for my inability to shoot! Now, having learned a little, I can say that this is the only telephoto lens for little money (in December it cost 4 thousand in general, and then with an increase in the rate I took it for 6 thousand). I bought it instead of the whale D3100, in order to be able to take large pictures in motion over long distances, namely to photograph players on the basketball court while being in the auditorium.…

Pros
  • telephoto lens
Cons
  • VR has to be turned off, it takes a very long time to focus. Conclusion - take it without VR

Revainrating 4 out of 5

Not a bad product, quite normal quality.

Contradictory lens. The main headache is its love of light. Everything else comes from it. But in daylight, even when it's cloudy, it gives a good, contrasting picture and is very sharp. The resolution of this lens is fully revealed in the D90, I think on other crops too. They write a lot about its alleged superiority over 18-55, and so the glasses are the same here and there. Yes, bokeh (but how else with such a FR), but there is more contrast at 200mm, there is more fat in the picture, that’s

Pros
  • 1. Price. This baby is inexpensive. However, we have a pretty good thing when shooting during the day, why, below. 2. Sharpness. Razor on all FRs. In good lighting. And on an open aperture. 320220 mm. Actually, for what we buy it. If you compare 300mm and 200mm, you will notice that the difference is very small. 4. Lightweight. Probably the lightest telephoto. 5. Volumetric drawing.
Cons
  • 1. Stab. Maybe I came across such an instance, but the stub is somehow confused. In sunny weather, it helps when there is little light, it spoils everything. Like this. empty place. 2. F4 at 55mm is much worse than the same 55mm at 18-55 with their F5.6. You will have to raise the ISO to horse values, but the result will be bad anyway. Conclusion: it is contraindicated when shooting at home. Good light will be all right, there is no light, we can assume that the carcass is without a lens. Clearly, there are tripods and puffs, but forget about your hands. Even 55 mm is essentially not working.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

Satisfied with the product, I recommend it to everyone.

Despite its nondescript appearance, this is a very good amateur glass, which gives a decent picture over the entire range of focal lengths. At the short end, it will more than replace the portrait lens. It will be quite problematic for them to shoot dynamic scenes, but just right for domestic and amateur purposes. Autofocus is slow and likes to move back and forth, but no misses. Also, be careful not to touch the focus ring, as you can easily lose focus, tk. it is rigidly connected and rotates

Pros
  • Lightweight, compact.
Cons
  • Completely plastic and flimsy. Incl. and bayonet.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

A practical product, nothing to complain about.

An excellent model in addition to the standard zoom 18-55VR. An amateur can forget about other glasses. By itself, it allows you to shoot everything from landscape to portrait. I personally tried to shoot architecture, of course, the building will not be completely covered, but the details are beyond praise, besides, due to the tele-construction, it gives a minimum of distortion.

Pros
  • Price, ultrasonic motor, stabilizer. It gives clear pictures on all FRs, autofocus is fast, sometimes it doesn’t cling in the dark, but it behaves quite adequately at dusk and in the forest. despite the fact that there is no special macro mode, it completely allows you to shoot, if not pure macro, then at least just small objects. I really liked the design, when focusing, the lens does not move out, the front lens does not rotate.
Cons
  • It is difficult to find, but these include plastic in the bayonet, and maybe a retractable construct. I don't see others.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

The right product for me, the price suited me.

You should not expect miracles from a lens for 7 thousand, so the listed shortcomings are very conditional. I really wanted a TV with a stabilizer in addition to the complete 18-55 (Nikon D3000 camera) Market analysis at the time of purchase produced 3 results - 55-200 (which is what we are talking about) - 55-300 and 70-300 VR (they did not fit the budget, they cost 13 and 24 thousand, respectively). "Non-native" lenses were not considered for purchase. For what purpose did you buy? I…

Pros
  • - price - Accurate and fast enough autofocus - sharp - stabilized
Cons
  • - darkish - low stabilizer efficiency - plastic mount and average build quality

Revainrating 3 out of 5

It's not all bad, an average quality purchase.

I had three copies of this glass when I was sitting on the D7100. One of the three was flat in sharpness, the rest had problems with angles and AF. This glass is definitely worth the money on the secondary. But there is another great glass - 55-300VR that breaks it in all respects, has great bokeh for dark zoom, and gorgeous color reproduction. Those who write that excellent portraits come out at 55-200 do not write here the amateurish nonsense of a novice photographer who first bought a DSLR…

Pros
  • 1) The price in the secondary market - a telephoto with a stub for a penny 2) High sharpness from F7.1 to F16 depending on the focal length 3) Compact and light weight 4) Mechanically made quite reliable and high quality
Cons
  • 1) Terrible bokeh - cheap, flickering like scales, 2) There is no drawing as such - it is very technical, rough, flat 3) Very mediocre, acidic, color reproduction, does not see halftones, adds some kind of dirty shade in the shadows. On 24pm crops, the picture from him is terrible in color and pattern. Stupidly one "whale" sharpness and that's it

Revainrating 5 out of 5

I'm very happy, it really is worth buying.

I have tested two 55-200s with and without VR. Both are perfectly sharp, which is simply gorgeous for this price range. The lens is light, at the minimum focal length it is quite compact. It’s the best thing for traveling, because even if something happens to it, it will be much less offensive than breaking glass for $ 2022. For an objective, you need a fairly firm hand or a device with working ISO400-800, in the shade, in cloudy weather - very important. When used with 18-55 or 16-85, it…

Pros
  • 1. Price. Native Nikon glass, for $ 200 with a focal length of up to 200. This is a gift for all beginner amateur photographers. 2. Built-in stub. 3. Sharp at all focal lengths. 4. Good equipment (case, covers). 5. Weight light enough for a zoom 6. Motor. 7. A fairly common diameter of the outer ring is 52mm
Cons
  • 1. Working apertures up to F / 13. Then it starts to lather. It is difficult to say - a feature of this instance or not. 2. Works out the stub a little worse at the long end compared to 75-300

Revainrating 5 out of 5

The best thing I've ever used, I recommend it to everyone!

Great lens for little money. Many scold the aperture ratio and the apparent fragility of the body / mount, but this is branded glass and at a very affordable price. Again - this lens will allow you to understand what you really want. For the entry level, this is a great addition to the whale 18-55mm. This 18-55mm + 55-200mm bundle will meet all your needs. The telephoto is excellent at taking portraits, and it is also very useful for walks, if any living creatures come across along the way. In

Pros
  • Price. Lightweight, compact. Built-in stabilizer and ultrasonic motor. Fast and tenacious auto-focus. Complete set: covers, hood, case.
Cons
  • Not suitable for macro, sometimes there is not enough angle, but he does not pretend to be.