HELP!...what's the difference in these 2 lenses?

[poser]

Ok, I've really been considering getting the a 55-200 lens for my D40, and there's been talk here recently about it, which kind of eggs me on even more, not to mention I'm still owed a valentines present :trust:

My problem is there's 2 that fit that description...

Nikkor DX 55-200 95m/3.12 ft

and

Nikkor DX VR 55-200 1.1m/3.61ft

other than the VR being more expensive, what's the difference? What does the VR mean? And what do the numbers mean?

[dixonduke]

Ken Rockwell explains it fairly well. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#vr)

[STScott]

Is one a fixed aperture lens and the other not?

[poser]

the VR looks like its a really good thing to have.

I'm still unsure if I want to pick one up, but every time i try and use my bigger lens [which is not auto focus on my camera body] I get annoyed that i can't do action shots with it

[STScott]

You can't go wrong with any VR (or IS as Canon calls it).

[Gilk51]

I looked at both lenses a year or so ago - $50 difference between no-VR and VR. I got the VR (image stabilization) and I like it a lot.

Pretty reasonable price at $250 or so.


-edit - official definition of VR is "vibration reduction".

[poser]

I looked at both lenses a year or so ago - $50 difference between no-VR and VR. I got the VR (image stabilization) and I like it a lot.

Pretty reasonable price at $250 or so.


-edit - official definition of VR is "vibration reduction".

I can pick it up for about $130 for the VR

[Gilk51]

I can pick it up for about $130 for the VR

Sounds like a great deal to me! :thumb: