Yes I meant 55-200. It is designed for the APS sized sensor. That is why it is so small for the zoom range. I did some quick tests between it and my Tokina 80-200/2.8 and Pentax 80-320. The Sigma was about as sharp as the Tokina. The big difference is speed vs size/weight.
Also the Sigma is built much cheaper - will not last as long, but it is quite inexpensive. Many times a very small, light walk-around kit for me is the DA 16-45 + Sigma 55-200. Those two lenses cover quite a wide range of focal lengths. Here are a few sample shots from the 55-200: http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9415.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9460a.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9474.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9544.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9558a.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9561.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/Misc/bkd_0005.htm -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, November 4, 2004, 2:57:03 PM, you wrote: DS> You may have answered my next post before I write it! (physic?) DS> I just had out MY Tokina 80-200/2.8! And "lugging" is a good DS> term to use for it. DS> I am looking for a lighter zoom in the same range to carry DS> for "everyday" use. DS> I have the F 70-210/4-5.6 and though it's a very good lens DS> I am looking for something a bit more "modern" to use. DS> Getting rather tired of the "boy that's an ugly one!" DS> comments. ;-) DS> I'll take a look at the Sigma, did you mean "55"-200? DS> Wierd range, but so is 16-45. DS> I've been playing with the Tamron 28-200, it doesn't seem DS> too bad stopped down a couple. DS> Don >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:41 PM >> To: Don Sanderson >> Subject: Re: Tamron 28-75/2.8 arrived! WooHoo!! >> >> >> Your reaction seems to be the same as most of us. I had the Tokina >> lens at one point and based on size/weight and optical quality, the >> Tamron is a real winner. It is mounted on my *istD quite often. >> >> One other suprisingly decent little lens is the Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 >> DC. Very small, quite sharp and good manual focus. Also very cheap. >> Mine is part of a small travel kit when I don't want to lug around the >> Tokina 80-200/2.8. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> Thursday, November 4, 2004, 2:12:46 PM, you wrote: >> >> DS> I was a little leery of this lens because it was so much >> DS> smaller and less expensive than the 28-70/2.8 ATX. >> DS> It is smaller and lighter, it's also beautifully built. >> DS> Zoom and focus (including MF) are firm and smooth. >> DS> AF is quiet and fast, and on the "D" that viewfinder sure >> DS> is bright! >> DS> It's a very good looking lens and so far the test shots >> DS> I've taken have been very sharp, well exposed, with >> DS> accurate color. >> DS> Flare control seems very good and Boket is quite >> DS> pleasing. >> DS> Focus to 13" (.33m) at all FLs is respectable. >> >> DS> This will probably become my standard lens very quickly, >> DS> replacing several slower short zooms. >> DS> The ATX at 810 grams would not have gotten lugged >> DS> around nearly as often as this one at 300 less. >> DS> Between this, the 16-45 and a Tamron MC7 TC a good >> DS> multipurpose kit won't be bad to carry around at all. >> >> DS> Thanks to all who suggested it. ;-) >> >> DS> Don >> >> >> >>
