Is the nikon 55-200mm a good lens for wildlife photography?

??Is the nikon 55-200mm a good lens for wildlife photography?
It's adequate, if you have a digital SLR, so long as it's not the D3. Like fhotoace said, you will probably lust after more lens once you get into this, though. Go here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=7189769@鈥?/a> and read and see what focal length I used. Most of these were shot with one Nikon DSLR or the other, so the focal length I used would be the same on your camera. See how many are shot at 200mm or below. For a while, that's as good as it got for me, but once I got the 70-300 lens, it became my first choice for wildlife.


~~~~~~


May I make a general observation 鈥?as if anyone is going to come back and read this... People. If someone is coming to Yahoo! Answers to see if a 55-200 lens would be good for wildlife, they are NOT even close to spending $5,000 on a lens, so why do you recommend it? Consider where you are when you answer these questions.Is the nikon 55-200mm a good lens for wildlife photography?
It's 'okay'...





but i wouldn't say it would be good enough if you were say really far away from somewhat of a dangerous animal, simply, you could get as close as you'd like, but , you wouldn't to if you have a lens which a further focal length.





http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-400mm-Ni鈥?/a>


if you could afford this lens ( which is more than 5,000$ ) you should get it, it'll be well worth the investment, however, if you couldn't, which i could understand, check out more on this website: http://amazon.com, and look at the nikkor lenses.
It is a good start ... I think you are referring to the 55-200 mm VR?





Later as you generate more income, you will be able to afford a great 400 mm f/2.8 for shooting wildlife from further away at dusk or dawn when they are out eating.
it's an okay lens for wildlife... you'd really want to get something like the 100-400mm.