Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t254997-light-tele-for-d70-sigma-55-200-or-nikon-28-200-a.html)

Albert Voss 04-09-2004 11:37 AM

Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
Looking for a moderate telezoom for a D70 that has to be light (really
light), I am thinking about Sigma's new DC lens 55-200 /4,0-5,6 (310
g) against the Nikon 28-200/3,5-5,6 D IF (360 g). Being twice as
expensive (or not as dirt cheap) as the Sigma, is the Nikon optically
better in the 55-200 range?

Albert

Paolo Pizzi 04-09-2004 12:54 PM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
Albert Voss wrote:

> Looking for a moderate telezoom for a D70 that has to be light (really
> light), I am thinking about Sigma's new DC lens 55-200 /4,0-5,6 (310
> g) against the Nikon 28-200/3,5-5,6 D IF (360 g). Being twice as
> expensive (or not as dirt cheap) as the Sigma, is the Nikon optically
> better in the 55-200 range?


Stay away from the so called "hyperzooms" (28-200, 28-300 etc.),
they're NEVER optically good.



David Kilpatrick 04-09-2004 03:48 PM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 


Albert Voss wrote:

> Looking for a moderate telezoom for a D70 that has to be light (really
> light), I am thinking about Sigma's new DC lens 55-200 /4,0-5,6 (310
> g) against the Nikon 28-200/3,5-5,6 D IF (360 g). Being twice as
> expensive (or not as dirt cheap) as the Sigma, is the Nikon optically
> better in the 55-200 range?
>


The Sigma lens is not especially good. I've been using it and I am
considering getting a 70-200mm f2.8 instead, because it really is not
very sharp.

If you have the Nikon 18-70mm zoom for D70, you hardly need to overlap
with one from 28-200mm. Just get the Nikon 70-200mm (or 80-200mm, or
whatever good s/h or new Nikon optic you can find - there is hardly a
shortage of standard tele zooms!)

David


Albert Voss 04-09-2004 07:00 PM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
>The Sigma lens is not especially good. I've been using it and I am
>considering getting a 70-200mm f2.8 instead, because it really is not
>very sharp.


I deliberately meant what I wrote: a "light" lens, point.

You totally missed my point by giving the cheap (a joke!) advice to
take up a AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2,8G IF-ED. Whow, thats not
only some 2200 EUR, which is prohibitive for most people even in the
high income country, where I live, but it is a whopping 1.479 g,
which is prohibitive for me personally.

I would not take it for a city holiday trip, even if I was given it
for free. I take photos for pleasure and will not end like those poor
pro chaps that have to take Ibuprofen, just to survive another
shooting for their livelihood.

And I know how good or rather bad long zooms are, I have had quite a
few of them in the last decades myself.

So once again, seriously, is there anybody who really cant tell the
presumed difference in the category that I am looking to, really light
tele zooms?

Albert

Paolo Pizzi 04-09-2004 10:56 PM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
Albert Voss wrote:

> So once again, seriously, is there anybody who really cant tell the
> presumed difference in the category that I am looking to, really light
> tele zooms?


The old Nikkor 70-210 f/4-5.6 is an excellent zoom, very sharp,
albeit not a speed champion in both optics and AF. You can find
it used on EBay for about $200. It's as light as you can go, if you
care about quality optics. If you want to buy new, probably your
best option is the new Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO II, which comes
with a bonus macro option (usable only in the 200-300mm range.)
AFAIK, the price of the Sigma is slightly less than $200.



George Kerby 04-10-2004 12:04 AM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
On 4/9/04 5:56 PM, in article
pSFdc.35135$OJ5.29850@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com, "Paolo Pizzi"
<paolopizziNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Albert Voss wrote:
>
>> So once again, seriously, is there anybody who really cant tell the
>> presumed difference in the category that I am looking to, really light
>> tele zooms?

>
> The old Nikkor 70-210 f/4-5.6 is an excellent zoom, very sharp,
> albeit not a speed champion in both optics and AF. You can find
> it used on EBay for about $200. It's as light as you can go, if you
> care about quality optics. If you want to buy new, probably your
> best option is the new Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO II, which comes
> with a bonus macro option (usable only in the 200-300mm range.)
> AFAIK, the price of the Sigma is slightly less than $200.
>
>

SHUTTUP SLUTBITCH! You don't know **** about anything concerning
photography. You are nothing but a pimple full of Pus that never heals.
Get the **** outta here. The .38 revolver is your friend. USE IT!


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>


Albert Voss 04-10-2004 07:12 AM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:56:21 GMT, "Paolo Pizzi"
<paolopizziNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


>The old Nikkor 70-210 f/4-5.6 is an excellent zoom, very sharp,
>albeit not a speed champion in both optics and AF.


As no light tele zoom is a speed champion, unfortunately you need a
kilogramm for f/2,8 and all zooms in this range and with F/5,6, I have
circled this in already. Is its AF speed slower than with newer
lenses?

>If you want to buy new, probably your
>best option is the new Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO II, which comes
>with a bonus macro option (usable only in the 200-300mm range.)


The APO Sigma is the favourite of many, as I have learned. But with
more than a pound it sounds less attractive as the newer 55-200, which
in DSLR terms is a 70-300 anyway, which would be enough for me without
a tripod.

Anybody out there that has compared the older APO with the new DC
lens?

Albert

Paolo Pizzi 04-11-2004 12:24 AM

Re: Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?
 
Albert Voss wrote:

> As no light tele zoom is a speed champion, unfortunately you need a
> kilogramm for f/2,8 and all zooms in this range and with F/5,6, I have
> circled this in already. Is its AF speed slower than with newer
> lenses?


Yes, it's slower but not dramatically slower.

>> If you want to buy new, probably your
>> best option is the new Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO II, which comes
>> with a bonus macro option (usable only in the 200-300mm range.)

>
> The APO Sigma is the favourite of many, as I have learned. But with
> more than a pound it sounds less attractive as the newer 55-200, which
> in DSLR terms is a 70-300 anyway, which would be enough for me without
> a tripod.


Unfortunately I'm not familiar with that lens.

> Anybody out there that has compared the older APO with the new DC
> lens?


The older APO was not nearly as good as the APOII, so much so that
many people preferred the old DL. AFAIK, the APOII is substantially
better than the DLII.




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.