Bushfiva,
So you're saying your 200mm zoom is better than his 200mm zoom.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting on PPRuNe, I really do. Why can't people take the time to read a post in context before hitting the "Submit Reply" button ?
Let me put it in plain English as follows :
The point I was trying to make is that I was surprised that he was feeling self-concious about a 55-200. I would not consider 55-200 to be a "pervy lens", and infact, in all honesty I was thinking that if he does consider it to be such a lens, why he bothered to buy a DSLR in the first place if he was worried about the size of the lenses he put on the front.
The reason for bringing up the 70-200 was as a comparison in physical size to demonstrate why I consider the 55-200 to certainly not belong on the "pervy" department.
It was by no means intended to be a willy waving post. The 70-200 is a great lens, there is no doubting that .... but I am not so insecure as to need to come on here and brag about it !
In absolute terms, you both top out at 200mm so are identical. I'd also wonder about your classification of the 18-200 as a "consumer" lens: the technology is no different to that in any other recent Nikon lens.
And by the way Bushfiva, I own both the 18-200 and the 70-200.
When you use them side by side, it doesn't take long to tell which one is consumer and which one is pro. And the "top out" at 200 is not strictly true, the 70-200 has a slight edge because of the focusing mechanism.
There are many ways to define "pro" vs "consumer" range, one major point for me is the aperture. You don't get 2.8 throughout on a "consumer" lens, for example. Another major point is consistency, see green granite's post about distortion etc.