PDA

View Full Version : Digital Lenses Sigma 55-200mm F4-5.6



craig
10-04-2005, 01:12 AM
Lens Construction: 12 element in 9 groups
Angle of view: 25.5-7.1
Max Aperture: F4-5.6
Min aperture: F22
Minimum focusing distance: 43.3 in
Filter size: 55mm
Dimensions: 2.8in x 3.4in
Weight: 10.9 oz.
Sigma site (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3288&navigator=6])

Support this site by ordering below:
<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=fourthirdspho-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=B0008E4I74&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000ff&bc1=000000&bg1=ffffff&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

craig
10-04-2005, 01:12 AM
At some point it may be here.. :)

craig
10-04-2005, 01:13 AM
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/si-055-200.html

Making this lens into a super zoom...
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/si-tcon.html

Post edited by: tspore, at: 2005/10/09 15:59

craig
10-04-2005, 01:13 AM
In our poll in which 18 people voted, they gave this lens an average of a 3.056 out of 5.
This is a far reaching lens on a budget. It reaches in 35mm terms to 400mm, which is a nice telephoto. Its price is 1/4 that of the Zuiko 50-200mm. It is according to users a \&quot;bit stiff.\&quot; But it is also more compact, because of the slower F stops. (I, Tony, have never used this lens, so I have no opinion)
http://fourthirdsphoto.com/images/stories/lenses/sigma55-200mm.jpg

NrthrnHrse
10-09-2005, 12:56 PM
Pros: My main shooting lens for now. Extremely lightweight compared to the Zuiko version. I really like the manual button on the lens so I can quickly change to manual focus if needed. LOVE THE ZOOM.

Cons: After only a few months of use, I've noticed some soft spots in my pictures, depending on length of zoom I'm using. Also it's a bear for focusing if you have lower light conditions like close to sunset or lots of shadows.

Price Paid: I think $160 including shipping from BH... very good starter lens.

Other info: Plan on upgrading to the Zuiko as soon as finances allow.

Frank B
10-09-2005, 01:54 PM
Pros: Focal length. Decent resoution, especially stopped down 1/3 to 2/3 fstop. Low weight. Low price. Manual focus button. Decent build.

Cons: Not an Olympus 50-200 f2.8. Need to switch to manual focus (using button on lens) to put on or take off lens hood to protect focus mechanism from damage. A little soft wide open and at 200mm, but usable.

Price: $159

Here is a link to an excellent and fair review.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/si-055-200.html

Michael Meissner
03-09-2006, 12:22 PM
I may have gotten a bad copy, but I really, really, really hate people pictures with this lens (crowd shots, etc.). This lens at telephoto is very soft, and I found myself having to crank up the sharpening just to get something usable. When I was using this lens, the pictures that I got were bad enough, I didn't bother using the lens, and instead carried my C-2100UZ to do zoom shots. When I was able to afford the better glass (first Olympus 40-150mm and then later 50-200mm) I no longered used this lens at all.

Allo
05-13-2006, 11:56 PM
I actually like it especially now that I can attach my TCON 17 to it thanks to the links above it gave me good reason to now keep the Olympus teleconverter.

With the TCON 17 teleconverter attached to my recently purchased Sigma 55-200 I now have 680mm in 35mm terms reach. Yeah I know the Sigma is an average lens if that but for less than 200 Canadian buckaroos it made me feel good to be cheap for once.:yahoo:

So what I now have is a "Not-So-Big" Mama:D attached to my E-1

This will keep me happy for at least a year until I can spring for the Oly 50-200.


PROS- on Sigma 55-200 - lightweight, small size, very cheap on price, body resembles a nice crinkle metal finish, I can attach my TCON17 to make it a super tele


CONS- a little soft on image and contrast a little lower than I'm used to (CS2 or in camera adjustments should fix that easily), plastic body hence the plastic threads may be weak but it seems pretty sturdy material as far as plastic is concerned so it may not be a biggie as as far as a weak point.

Allo
05-16-2006, 09:13 AM
400mm, which is a nice telephoto. Its price is 1/4 that of the Zuiko 50-200mm.

Right now in Toronto it is on special for 197 Canadian which is a steal so its actually 1/6 the price of the Oly 50-200(my next lens). Very cheap indeed.

Blu-by-u
04-17-2007, 10:31 PM
Not the best of lens but usable. It's small and lightweight. Many people would not even know their picture is being taken with this lens. The images produced is soft.

Pro : Small light weight and cheap
Con : Soft images and noisy in use.

Purchased Price : US$139.95

Steve Adams
04-18-2007, 05:06 PM
I like mine alot. Great pictures, its a litle noisy, but nothing serious.

Photos that come from it are sharp for what it is, its going to serve me good at seaworld, and busch gardens.....

I def wont sell it, as the wife gets more into photography probably get a 410 for her to shoot with.


EDIT: It is slow on the focusing, so its not great for action work, but for shooting wildlife thats not moving to fast i.e. theme parks, general shots etc its fine.

red
04-24-2007, 06:25 AM
i got this lens together when i purchased my E-500. pretty solid to the hand and quite useful to cover the weide range of telephoto. i rarely use it now.

pro: cheap. wide range. easy to get.

cons: soft image. f5.6 is not good enough at 200mm since E500 is rather noisy at > ISO400. my copy has a tight zoom ring.