Odd truth

In no case have I seen a 55-200mm lens made for a full 35mm (36x24) sensor. They are all DX/DC/DiII models designed for 18x24. All full35 bodies can use the smaller-sensor lenses, but auto-crop mode yields a reduced pixel count. For example, the D600 takes 24Mpx images with full35 lenses but just over 10Mpx images when cropped to the smaller projection. Not ideal.

I picked up a huge Tamron 70-300mm lens for its impressive range and (mostly) for its VC stabilization. At over 600g it's a lot more lens than I wish.. so I went looking for a light telephoto option. Something like a 50-200mm was ideal, but I wanted it to fill as much of the full35 frame so I would lose minimal pixels. Reviews chose to say nothing about lens coverage for models I examined (e.g. Nikon 55-200dx/vr or Tamron's Di-II).  I figured that old models might be more film compatible, so I looked into elderlenses.

A brief hunt revealed a Quantaray 55-200mm lens, a Ritz camera rebadge of a Sigma or (in this case, most likely) Tamron lens. The low price was worth a chance so I bought a copy complete with original caps and hood.

Results are confusingly good. I see images with 6000x4000 pixels, very low vignette and decent sharpness when wide open at 55and 200mm. Random shots at other values are nice too. If it's not a full35 lens it's an incredibly close facsimile!

I could test it against the 70-300VC, but what would I learn of value? Only that more cash and bulk will provide incrementally better images - and I already expect that answer. Or worse yet: what if the Quantaray is the better lens?? 

For my needs, this is clearly a nice plan-B telephoto worth carrying! The problem now is to justify the heavy and expensive model, when 600mm/e is available with my stabilized 𝛍43 system.