Nikon 55-200 lens or Sygma

Ritz camera sells a Nikon digital lens (55-200) - is it better to purchase a
Nikon lens for the Nikon D-50 or doesn't it matter?

"Yomama" writes:

Ritz camera sells a Nikon digital lens (55-200) - is it better to purchase a
Nikon lens for the Nikon D-50 or doesn't it matter?

In consumer lenses of that sort, the Tamron, Tokina, and sometimes
Sigma lenses are worth considering. They all, and Nikon, make some
individual lenses that are clunkers, and some designs that don't
really shine, but also some decent lenses.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

This is not a flame: the Nikon 55-200 is one of the worst lenses ever
marketed under the Nikon nameplate.
Do two things with the lens in the sto point it at something and wait for
it to find focus. Go out to lunch and come back and it may have found focus.
Otherwise come back the next day.
Second look at a point light source through the lens. Look at the point
light source directly instead of through the camera. Is there something
wrong with the lens or with your eyes?

"bmoag" wrote in message
news
This is not a flame: the Nikon 55-200 is one of the worst lenses ever
marketed under the Nikon nameplate.
Do two things with the lens in the sto point it at something and wait
for it to find focus. Go out to lunch and come back and it may have found
focus. Otherwise come back the next day.
Second look at a point light source through the lens. Look at the point
light source directly instead of through the camera. Is there something
wrong with the lens or with your eyes?

Try the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO much better.

"bmoag" wrote in message
news
This is not a flame: the Nikon 55-200 is one of the worst lenses ever
marketed under the Nikon nameplate.
Do two things with the lens in the sto point it at something and wait
for it to find focus. Go out to lunch and come back and it may have found
focus. Otherwise come back the next day.
Second look at a point light source through the lens. Look at the point
light source directly instead of through the camera. Is there something
wrong with the lens or with your eyes?


Hi.

I think that is what he was meaning. That Nikon (whoever makes it?) 55 -
200 must be pretty close to the biggest clunker ever sold by them.

I was waiting on it being released, until I read the specs, and they were
enough to put me right off it. So I dug a bit deeper into the rainy day
fund and bought a REAL Nikon second hand.

Roy G

Wow! Sure glad I asked - thanks to all for your info

"Roy G" wrote in message
...
"bmoag" wrote in message
news
This is not a flame: the Nikon 55-200 is one of the worst lenses ever
marketed under the Nikon nameplate.
Do two things with the lens in the sto point it at something and wait
for it to find focus. Go out to lunch and come back and it may have found
focus. Otherwise come back the next day.
Second look at a point light source through the lens. Look at the point
light source directly instead of through the camera. Is there something
wrong with the lens or with your eyes?


Hi.

I think that is what he was meaning. That Nikon (whoever makes it?) 55 -
200 must be pretty close to the biggest clunker ever sold by them.

I was waiting on it being released, until I read the specs, and they were
enough to put me right off it. So I dug a bit deeper into the rainy day
fund and bought a REAL Nikon second hand.

Roy G

thanks much - any recommendations on a retailer?

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"bmoag" wrote in message
news
This is not a flame: the Nikon 55-200 is one of the worst lenses ever
marketed under the Nikon nameplate.
Do two things with the lens in the sto point it at something and wait
for it to find focus. Go out to lunch and come back and it may have found
focus. Otherwise come back the next day.
Second look at a point light source through the lens. Look at the point
light source directly instead of through the camera. Is there something
wrong with the lens or with your eyes?

Try the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO much better.

I have to disagree, just a bit. The Nikon 55-200 is good for the money.
I reckon the slowness of this lens is exaggerated. Sometimes it hunts
a bit, but usually it's OK, and I like to take my time. What's the
hurry? ;-)

It's fine for general purpose, but not for sports or photographing
birds in flight. The Sigma isn't bad but has a lot of chromatic
aberration which I don't like and would bug me enormously.

I'm using the Nikon 55-200 as a 'temporary' lens, as I have the Nikon
18-200 VR on back order, so it's not a long term investment.?Alongside
more expensive lenses, it cannot compare, but looking at the equivalent
'zoom' on a x10 ultrazoom camera, Nikon's 55-200 is far superior, which
is probably a fairer comparison.

The Nikon 28-200 is supposed to be pretty good, and the 70-300 also,
both probably better than the 55-200. However, I have been pleasantly
surprised by the results from the 55-200. The important thing to
remember is that you get what you pay for, and this is not an expensive
lens.




In article %Ci8g.75074$gE.2296@dukeread06, Hoover
wrote:

Wow! Sure glad I asked - thanks to all for your info

"Roy G" wrote in message
...
"bmoag" wrote in message
news
This is not a flame: the Nikon 55-200 is one of the worst lenses ever
marketed under the Nikon nameplate.
Do two things with the lens in the sto point it at something and wait
for it to find focus. Go out to lunch and come back and it may have found
focus. Otherwise come back the next day.
Second look at a point light source through the lens. Look at the point
light source directly instead of through the camera. Is there something
wrong with the lens or with your eyes?


Hi.

I think that is what he was meaning. That Nikon (whoever makes it?) 55 -
200 must be pretty close to the biggest clunker ever sold by them.

I was waiting on it being released, until I read the specs, and they were
enough to put me right off it. So I dug a bit deeper into the rainy day
fund and bought a REAL Nikon second hand.

Roy G