Monopod necessary for 50-200mm?

I was reading up on what mono-pods are and what they were used for and when they should be used. I read on a site that its not meant to replace a tripod but it will provide more stability with a long lens. Now would a 55-200mm consider a long lens? IIm just thinking that maybe when i zoom into 200mm i might want that mono-pod to make things more stable. Would you guys get a mono-pod if you were using a Nikkor AF-S DX 55-200mm with VR?

I already have a tripod but its not that great. (My uncle gave me a tripod since he bought a new one) the tripod is steady and very light but the head is very limited with how you want to angle the camera. And i figured since i'm going on vacation i might want something more portable like a mono-pod.

I have done both. But if you know how to hold a camera steady and if you know how to properly operate the lens you shouldn't need one… Not for 200mm.

I shoot some stuff at 300mm but only in bright sunlight and then only at 1/1000 to avoid camera movement blur. I shoot normally with a 28-200 and don't have any problems hand holding the camera.

Besides if you buy a tripod and simply collapse the legs, it'll work just like a mono-pod. I do this sometimes for video.

Your lens is fairly light so for most daylight situations you should be able to hold it handheld, especially if you have the VR version. But when you begin to shoot in marginal lighting conditions, you will want to use either a tripod or monopod. In fact, if you have VR, you are supposed to turn it off when using a monopod/tripod.

A tripod is better than a monopod for stability, but a monopod does have it's use. I have a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, which is a long - heavy lens. I find that many times, if I'm shooting sports, or holding the lens for a long time, I'll switch to a monopod.

A monopod is better in sports than a tripod as it is easier to pan with it. Of course, this is limited to sports or action photography, but each device has it's own purpose.

And many venues will not let you take a tripod. A lot of sports stadiums, gymnasiums, or theater environments will allow monopods but not tripods. Professional photographers standing on the sidelines all use monopods as tripods are not allowed (and harder to pan fast-action photography).

I have both, as they each have a specific purpose. Monopods for sports - especially if I have to pan with a heavy lens, tripods for more static situations - portraiture, macro, and so on.

No. A 55-200 with VR is so small and light. I'd shoot it at 1/15 without much trouble.

I use a monopod on my 150-500 though but that's sort of big. (here it is with a d3100 dangling at the end: )

The correct bracing against a wall, telephone box, postbox or bannister can work just as well for static shots, Especially if you set the cameras drive to continuous and rattle of a few shots (first shakey, last shakey, eveything else in between sharp)

Monopods are really useful for action shots where you may pan the camera to track the moving subject, most other times a tripod is more useful.