Nikon 55-200 vs Sigma 50-200

§

§am

Senior Member
I'm after a tele lens to partner the 'kit' 18-55 on the D5100.

Basically torn between the;
Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED
Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DC OS HSM

I've tried both, and both are appealing to me - just don't know which one would be better.
I'm after something that I might only use occasionally, as I'm more than likely have the 18-55mm on, or a prime 50mm, so this one would probably be used more for school sports days, school plays etc

Any thoughts on this please?
 
Z

ZekeMenuar

New member
No experience with the Sigma

Lot's of experience with the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens. It's light, fast to focus and takes great pictures.
When I bought my D3100 it came as part of a package that also included the 18-55mm kit lens.
I use the 55-200mm as my walkaround lens. I take the 18-55mm with me but it rarely sees the light of day.
There's a ton of them on the used market so I bought a second as a spare.

I'm a cheap SOB. For $150 new this lens is hard to beat.

Here's an example of the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens.
DSC_5542.jpg


Here's what it looks like on the D3100.
PA270088-1.jpg
 
D

DW_

Senior Member
Before I give you my opinion I want to state that I categorically dislike all Sigma and Tameron lenses and feel they have yet to make a product that compares in any way to a Nikkor with the same parameters. With that said, let's imagine for a moment that this Sigma does indeed perform equal to the Nikkor, the downside is that you'll have a very hard time getting your money back out of the lens when it comes time to sell it. There's just no market in used Sigma lenses. That alone should tip the balance back to the Nikkor. But this example is clearly an imaginary example because IMO a Sigma lens has never been made that is the equal of a Nikkor lens. This may change someday (I doubt it) but until I hear/see differently, I would always choose Nikkor over Sigma.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I would recommend the Nikon mostly for it's resale value.

A month after you buy it you're gonna wish you had the 55-300 or 70-300, because now you "need" 300mm.

Once you buy one of those, you will realize the Nikon 70-200vrII is the must have telephoto zoom. If you become one of the lucky few to afford it and actually get it, you will then convience yourself 200mm is just fine. Get the nikon, let the cycle begin :)
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
DWPhotos said:
Before I give you my opinion I want to state that I categorically dislike all Sigma and Tameron lenses and feel they have yet to make a product that compares in any way to a Nikkor with the same parameters. With that said, let's imagine for a moment that this Sigma does indeed perform equal to the Nikkor, the downside is that you'll have a very hard time getting your money back out of the lens when it comes time to sell it. There's just no market in used Sigma lenses. That alone should tip the balance back to the Nikkor. But this example is clearly an imaginary example because IMO a Sigma lens has never been made that is the equal of a Nikkor lens. This may change someday (I doubt it) but until I hear/see differently, I would always choose Nikkor over Sigma.
Click to expand...

Along these lines, camera shops must have a much higher profit margin on third party lenses. A few days ago a salesmen tried to sell me the Tamron ultra wide over the Nikon 10-24, which he said was just as good, not saying it isn't but I thought it was odd.
 
Z

ZekeMenuar

New member
cnyram said:
I would recommend the Nikon mostly for it's resale value.

A month after you buy it you're gonna wish you had the 55-300 or 70-300, because now you "need" 300mm.
Click to expand...

I suffered a bout of "gotta have 300MM" disease. Then Adorama had a refurb 55-300mm VR for $269.

Nice lens. Having the extra range is real nice, takes great pictures.....but....It's slow to auto-focus.
Great for some things but not as versatile as the 55-200 VR.
 
§

§am

Senior Member
Unfortunately budget plays a factor in this choice, and I've never normally strayed away from the mfr's own, but having 'played' with both was hard pressed to chose between them.

Not sure I would want to actually ever resell any of my lenses, so hmmmm...

Might just have to save up a little more for the Nikon :)
 
bluenoser

bluenoser

Banned
SS381 said:
I'm after a tele lens to partner the 'kit' 18-55 on the D5100.

Basically torn between the;
Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED
Sigma 50-200mm f/4-5.6 DC OS HSM

I've tried both, and both are appealing to me - just don't know which one would be better.
I'm after something that I might only use occasionally, as I'm more than likely have the 18-55mm on, or a prime 50mm, so this one would probably be used more for school sports days, school plays etc

Any thoughts on this please?
Click to expand...

Hi. I believe you mentioned that you hadn't picked up your camera and kit lens yet? (sorry if I've got this wrong). What I'd recommend is that you not get the 18-55 and get the 18-105VR instead. It's a better, more versatile lens that the 18-55 and can be had for a reasonable price in the used market (a very plentiful supply). Frankly if I had to choose between the 2 set-ups, I'd rather have only the 18-105VR than the 18-55 + the 55-200VR. Having the 18-105VR I would then try to save up and get the 70-300VR (or at least the 55-300VR) and pass on the 55-200VR (I frankly don't think much of that lens either). In my strong opinion, that would give you better coverage (I prefer a little overlap between lenses) and better quality lenses.
 
§

§am

Senior Member
There's a good £60 difference between the two, and I do like the Nikon lenses a lot.
Looks like I might have been swayed back into not going 3rd party on my lens :)

James - the 18-105 is certainly on my list for a future lens, though it will there with the 18-200 so all depends on how much I can save up.

I might hold off on the tele lens all together for a while now, and stay with the 18-55 and (hopefully) 50mm prime I'm seeking :)

Ahh the joys of photography and juggling your budget :p
 
M

Mjaydakid

Senior Member
Given the choice between the two and all things being equal, I (a novice & weekend warrior) would go with the Nikon. There is no logic or science behind this. I just feel it is cool to have everything from the same company. I just recieved my Nikon 55-200 vr lens monday. I can't wait to give it a spin. I think I got a good deal on Ebay. The kit consisted of the lense, filters, Hood, etc. Less than $175.00. My next purchase is the 35mm prime.
 
§

§am

Senior Member
I just got a cracking deal from Adorama on the 55-200mm
For the same price as it's lesser brother, just got the IF-ED VR version.

Such a shame they didn't have the 50mm prime in stock as I was offer a corker deal if I had taken it :(
 
§

§am

Senior Member
Yeah.. worked out at $~148 and that's with no bargaining at all. It's one of their 'kit' offers at the moment :)

I'm visiting the states hence ordered stuff in advance (works out so much cheaper than buying in the UK), and if they could have guaranteed the 50mm 1.8G to be in stock the fortnight I was there - well lets just say, after some hefty negotiating and a big order, that would have set me back $~135!!!!
But as stock is so rare and the chances I won't get it, I can't pre-order as the shipping and customs etc would bring the price back to what I'm likely to pay here anyway :(

Oh well... time to have fun with my new lens next week :D
 
Top