Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 24, 2010, 9:23 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default Nikon 55-200

since i got my 17-55, i have been searching for some thing longer to complement it.
i love the 70-200/2.8 , but at that length and weight, i know i will not tote that. even if i got it freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
my mind was set on the 70-300, but would like to consider the 55-200 as an alternative, price is not an issue, but considered it, as it is lighter, smaller, and found that i rearly want over 55
Ken rockwell speaks highly of it ( 55-200 ) but yet claims that being a plastic mount lens if one grabs it by the lens while it is mounted to the body, the mount will break off.
how true is that ?
is the plastic mount that weak ?
why would Nikon make a mount that weak ?
any of you guys can shed some light on this lens, or should i just get the 70-300 ?

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 24, 2010, 10:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

sigma 70-200 really isnt that bad.
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 10:58 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbjunkiee View Post
sigma 70-200 really isnt that bad.

that also was on my watch list
the weight and length
buying it wont be a problem
wanting to carry around that weight and length, might be a problem

Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 11:09 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

i climb, so my fingers are conditioned, and i never use a neck strap, so my neck is fine :P

and the 300 you were eyeing is about the same length, plus it isnt near as fast.

but in reality the sigma, it is an amzing all around, fast lense. it will not dissapoint inside or out.
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 11:22 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbjunkiee View Post
i climb, so my fingers are conditioned, and i never use a neck strap, so my neck is fine :P

and the 300 you were eyeing is about the same length, plus it isnt near as fast.

but in reality the sigma, it is an amzing all around, fast lense. it will not dissapoint inside or out.

as you mentioned it , the sigma is only 1.6 inches longer and 1.3 pounds heavier. i like it being faster, 1/3 of the price of the nikon.
now i starting to consider adopting the heavier weight and length
Dave
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 11:27 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

you get used to it quick, love mine!

pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 11:50 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

well what can i say
you have changed my mind about getting the 55-200 or the 70-300
for now, something to think about
i prefer fast glass and i see they have the OS version coming
thanks

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 6:40 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dafiryde View Post
since i got my 17-55, i have been searching for some thing longer to complement it.
i love the 70-200/2.8 , but at that length and weight, i know i will not tote that. even if i got it freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
my mind was set on the 70-300, but would like to consider the 55-200 as an alternative, price is not an issue, but considered it, as it is lighter, smaller, and found that i rearly want over 55
Ken rockwell speaks highly of it ( 55-200 ) but yet claims that being a plastic mount lens if one grabs it by the lens while it is mounted to the body, the mount will break off.
how true is that ?
is the plastic mount that weak ?
why would Nikon make a mount that weak ?
any of you guys can shed some light on this lens, or should i just get the 70-300 ?

Dave
\

You don't have to worry about the lens breaking at the mount. The lenses are quite durable (even plastic ones) and one shouldn't be picking up their rig by the lens anyway. The 55-200 is a solid performer, and quite lightweight, much much lighter than your 17-55. The 70-300vr is a very good performer, but it is bigger and heavier, but really is the best if you need the extra reach. Sigma also makes a 50-150 f2.8(non stabilized) which is excellent, and is a good compromise between size and reach. Any constant f2.8 long zoom is going to be big and heavy.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 7:30 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The internet is full of idiots with soap boxes. Ken Rockwell attracts attention to himself by saying outrageous things, regardless of their validity. He shots "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

The more I use the Internet, the more I miss CompuServe.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 6:57 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjseeney View Post
\

You don't have to worry about the lens breaking at the mount. The lenses are quite durable (even plastic ones) and one shouldn't be picking up their rig by the lens anyway. The 55-200 is a solid performer, and quite lightweight, much much lighter than your 17-55. The 70-300vr is a very good performer, but it is bigger and heavier, but really is the best if you need the extra reach. Sigma also makes a 50-150 f2.8(non stabilized) which is excellent, and is a good compromise between size and reach. Any constant f2.8 long zoom is going to be big and heavy.

so the big question is Sigma 50-150 or Sigma 70-200
which do you think has the better IQ on the overlapping focal lengths
1.2 lbs, 2inches, $50 dollars, is not much difference

Dave
T&T
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:43 AM.