Nikkor 55-200 or 50mm 1.8?

Started Jul 25, 2014 | Discussions thread
grannygear Regular Member • Posts: 352
Re: Nikkor 55-200 or 50mm 1.8?

Theo_J wrote:

cbart wrote:

Up until now I've been shooting exclusively with the 18-55 and 55-200. Pretty much everything I do is landscape and wildlife related, (18-55 for landscapes, 55-200 for wildlife, some landscapes, and portraits) although I would also like to have a nice portrait lens. I recently acquired the tamron 150-600 for my wildlife needs, which I figure will probably mostly limit my 55-200 for use as a portrait lens.

Those things considered, would I break even selling my 55-200 and getting a 50mm 1.8? Are the benefits of a 50mm fixed going to outweigh the loss of focal lengths 55-150? And while I am asking this, anyone out there with experience with both the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8? And is there a better affordable option for portraits out there?

I sold my 55-200 because I bought a Tamron 70-300. While the Tamron is a nice lens, I regret selling the 55-200. It's lightweight, versatile, cheap. Took lots of portraits with it in the 70-100 range. I find 50 mm too short for portraits.

I too had a 55-200 and flipped it, but overall, it was a pretty good, useful, inexpensive lens. Look for a deal on a used 50mm prime and keep the 50-200.

 grannygear's gear list:grannygear's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow