Nikon 55-200

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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."

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

birdman wrote:

> 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- [...] _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

--
-- 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.