Advertisements


Go Back   Four Thirds User discussion forum > Equipment > Lenses > Sigma lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27th August 2007
Mike Mike is offline
Forever Learning Slowly
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Has anyone any experience of this lens, I'm looking for a budget lens that will give me a litttle more than the 40-150 kit lens. Specifically how does it perform at the 200 end of the range.
Regards
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 27th August 2007
Ian's Avatar
Ian Ian is offline
admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hemel Hempstead UK
Posts: 7,510
Blog Entries: 12
Thanks: 127
Thanked 681 Times in 420 Posts
Likes: 50
Liked 72 Times in 29 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike View Post
Has anyone any experience of this lens, I'm looking for a budget lens that will give me a litttle more than the 40-150 kit lens. Specifically how does it perform at the 200 end of the range.
Regards
Mike
Hi Mike, I did try one of these a while back and wasn't impressed. Your 40-150 is much sharper (and brighter).

You could sell your 40-150 and get a 50-200 instead. The 40-150 is a very good lens, but the 50-200 is an excellent one. It's a lot dearer though

Maybe you could keep an eye out for a used one? Or you could hang on for the 70-300 in a couple of months?

Ian
__________________
Founder/editor
Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27th August 2007
Mike Mike is offline
Forever Learning Slowly
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 104
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Hi Ian,
I think it was the 50-200 i borrowed for a couple of shots in Oxford, very good but very expensive like you say. I guess I'll keep looking then
Cheers
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24th May 2008
pascalg pascalg is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: france
Posts: 46
Thanks: 1
Thanked 12 Times in 5 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

agree with the fact that this lens is not very impressive...
wanted a budget zoom, and when we compared it with my wife's kit lens (40-150mm) i was a bit disappointed...
i'm getting used to it now, and don't use the widest aperture ; even found two good things about it :
. a nice(r) bokeh (than 40-150) [but it can be a personal pov]
. good for atmospheric moody shots : uploaded an example here...


cheers,

pascal.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 4th April 2010
Kevin Knops's Avatar
Kevin Knops Kevin Knops is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Hey guys,

Well I just wanted to post a new thread about this discussion. Because I was searching for lenses on a new pdf file from Olympus, I saw the 55-200. It's price, 145 euro, looked very nice. So I began doubting between the 40-150mm kitlens and the 55-200mm Sigma lens. After seeing these replies, I thought about this: Is the 40-150 mm also a Wide-angle lens?

So if someone can give me an answer to this?

With kind regards,
Kevin Knops
__________________
Kevin Knops

Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.

Ansel Adams
Olympus E-620 - 14-42 mm - 40-150 mm - Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW - Manfrotto 785-SHB
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 4th April 2010
flarsson flarsson is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 69
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

The 40-150 is NOT a wideangle lens - with the 2,0-cropfactor it is equivalent to a 80-300mm lens for fullframe or film camera. It is a telelens, absolutely NOT a wideangle.

Concerning the 55-200 - it is good for the price (it is VERY cheap), but optically the 40-150 (new or old) are better and also more costly.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 4th April 2010
Kevin Knops's Avatar
Kevin Knops Kevin Knops is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Quote:
Originally Posted by flarsson View Post
The 40-150 is NOT a wideangle lens - with the 2,0-cropfactor it is equivalent to a 80-300mm lens for fullframe or film camera. It is a telelens, absolutely NOT a wideangle.

Concerning the 55-200 - it is good for the price (it is VERY cheap), but optically the 40-150 (new or old) are better and also more costly.
Well eventually, the 40-150 mm is cheaper as a kitlens. If you buy it not as kit, it is a lot more expensive. So I doubt between these lenses. I want some wide angle. but also a lens that is good at night, at a good zoom. So I don't know what to get. Those are the first lenses I am going to buy. (Camera also)
Im sure that I will buy the 14-42, but not really sure about the 40-150 or 55-200. Can you say what would be the best choice to me?

So hope somebody can help me further

Kevin Knops
__________________
Kevin Knops

Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.

Ansel Adams
Olympus E-620 - 14-42 mm - 40-150 mm - Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW - Manfrotto 785-SHB
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 4th April 2010
flarsson flarsson is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 69
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

If you buy as a kit lens, the 40-150 is a steal for the price difference.
If you want real wideangle, the 9-18mm Zuiko is the most affordable with the Sigma 10-20 as the pricewise only competitor.
The Oly 11-22 and especially the eminent 7-14mm wideangle are quite a bit more costly.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 4th April 2010
Kevin Knops's Avatar
Kevin Knops Kevin Knops is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Ok, thank you! I think I go for the 40-150, and later this year I buy another lens.

Kevin Knops
__________________
Kevin Knops

Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs.

Ansel Adams
Olympus E-620 - 14-42 mm - 40-150 mm - Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW - Manfrotto 785-SHB
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 6th April 2010
davidthornburg davidthornburg is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NM, USA
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Sigma 55-200 f/4-6.3

Several years ago when I bought my E500, I also bought a Sigma 55-200 with the intent of using it for a year or so until I could buy the Oly 50-200.
Indeed, the Oly lens is a lot better - a brighter view in the viewfinder, and a "crisper" image from the camera; better color and contrast. However, the Sigma 55-200 is very inexpensive and if you plan to use it in bright light, you may get the results you need from it.
One last point - if you do no post-processing in software, thus depending on camera jpegs, the 55-200 isn't for you. But, if you use software to adjust your images, then you'd find that the low contrast and slightly washed-out color (probably due to low contrast) can be "fixed" quite nicely in software. I got quite a few decent bird photos with the 55-200, but the Oly 50-200 is a lot better. Also a lot more money. Good luck. - David
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:45 AM.


The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2012, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger