When it came out, and people posted some photos on DPR, it seemed like it was a decent lens. Bokeh looks good, reasonably sharp. I'd get it if I needed that focal range. I'm tempted but not sure if it's worth it for me because I plan to use a-mount lenses in this range; only the manual-focus aspect of that will really bother me, but we'll see. I may break down and get it. :-/
Like zvos, I went on a trip and used the 16mm lens mostly, and thought that was pretty useful. I liked that wide angle a lot more than I expected! Surprising, really. But there are certain specific situations where you need a longer lens. In my case, it's wildlife and airshows, both of which I attempt to shoot on rare occasions. For travel to an urban area, I don't think I'd bother with anything too long.
A 55-200 was one of my most-used lenses a few years ago (for a-mount). I could take snaps of a stage performance at f4 (just up the ISO a bit), it was a good lens for zoos or Sea World. For airshows, an even longer lens is useful. That's the problem with these lenses, you can always find a need for another one. ;-) But if forced to choose just one tele lens, I think a 55-200 makes a lot of sense.
In short, if you think you might use it, I say go for it. ;-) But sorry, I have no experience with it personally. You might check out DPR forums.