Hello Peter, I would say that it is well worth the money if you are looking for a small, light zoom. It is quite sharp, and is nice to manually focus. The barrel rotates when focusing so use of a polarizer or graduated filters can be clumsy.
Here are some more recent shots taken with it: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0088.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9415.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9460a.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9469.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9474.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9544.htm http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9561.htm -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 4:13:34 AM, you wrote: PB> Hi Bruce, PB> how good is your Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC? PB> It is quite cheap - is it worth the money? PB> I need some lightweight telezoom only for *ist D, PB> Regards PB> Peter Belak >> Right now, my lightweight kit is the *istD (sans grip), DA 16-45 and >> Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC. I would love to have a constant f4 zoom with >> about the same optical quality as the DA 16-45.
