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 Voss, Apr 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Albert Voss

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Stay away from the so called "hyperzooms" (28-200, 28-300 etc.),
    they're NEVER optically good.
    Paolo Pizzi, Apr 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

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

    Albert Voss Guest

    The Sigma lens is not especially good. I've been using it and I am
    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 Voss, Apr 9, 2004
  5. Albert Voss

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    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
  6. Albert Voss

    Albert Voss Guest

    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
    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

    Albert Voss, Apr 10, 2004
  7. Albert Voss

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Yes, it's slower but not dramatically slower.
    Unfortunately I'm not familiar with that 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
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.