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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004.

  1. Albert Voss

    Albert Voss Guest

    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
    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Albert Voss

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    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.
    Paolo Pizzi, Apr 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Albert Voss

    Albert Voss Guest

    >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
    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Albert Voss

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    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.
    Paolo Pizzi, Apr 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Albert Voss

    George Kerby Guest

    On 4/9/04 5:56 PM, in article
    pSFdc.35135$, "Paolo Pizzi"
    <> 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 SHIT 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 <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Apr 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Albert Voss

    Albert Voss Guest

    On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:56:21 GMT, "Paolo Pizzi"
    <> 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
    Albert Voss, Apr 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Albert Voss

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    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.
    Paolo Pizzi, Apr 11, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. alkapendas

    D70 con Sigma 70-200 f2,8

    alkapendas, Oct 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    329
    Chuck
    Oct 6, 2004
  2. Jimmy G

    D70 tele suggestion

    Jimmy G, Jan 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    261
    Jimmy G
    Jan 26, 2005
  3. Jimmy G

    Looking for a SHARP tele for D70

    Jimmy G, Jul 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    256
    Jimmy G
    Jul 10, 2005
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,568
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    834
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page