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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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?

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