Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Nikon 55-200

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
birdman - 26 Jul 2005 04:13 GMT
Arf: this lens is a Dog.
Very slow to focus, lots of aberrations. My impression is the slow focus is
not due to mechanical factors but to inherent low contrast or flare that
prevents the autofocus sensor in the camera settle on maximum edge contrast.
The starburst pattern one sees through this lens looking at a light source
is smear rather than a starburst.
The flaws are evident the instant this lens is mounted on the camera. I
tried a few and they all are equally disappointing.
It is very, very light weight, if that is a criterion.
I cannot understand why Nikon put out a lens branded with the Nikon name on
a lens of this poor design and low quality manufacture. If Nikon wants to
maintain their technical prestige they may want to clearly market two
different lens lines, "budget" and "worth purchasing."
Pete D - 26 Jul 2005 08:57 GMT
Not everyone can afford a Ferarri like you, hey they are probably over it by
now.

> Arf: this lens is a Dog.
> Very slow to focus, lots of aberrations. My impression is the slow focus
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> to maintain their technical prestige they may want to clearly market two
> different lens lines, "budget" and "worth purchasing."
Alan Browne - 26 Jul 2005 14:14 GMT
> I cannot understand why Nikon put out a lens branded with the Nikon name on
> a lens of this poor design and low quality manufacture. If Nikon wants to
> maintain their technical prestige they may want to clearly market two
> different lens lines, "budget" and "worth purchasing."

Nikon (and the others) have always produced dogs for people who don't
have the bucks or know the difference.

IAC 55-200 as a zoom ratio is a good hint from the get-go that it isn't
going to be stellar.

FWIW: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CsgW has
some 'tests' of the lens.

Or, if you prefer inanity:
"The bayonet mount is plastic. This is OK, people like me try to change
lenses on digital cameras as little as possible." --Ken Rockwell.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.