[GLThorne]

Ok guys, what about this lens? Anybody had good results with it???

Thanks!!

[-spam-]

Some people reckon its soft and will tell you to get the tamron instead.

Its still on my list though. For either canon or pentax, depending which one i decide to invest the most into.

It is an EX lens afterall, so it should be in with the best of what sigma has to offer.

[scribble]

It is an EX lens afterall, so it should be in with the best of what sigma has to offer.

That means so little. Yes, it is a good lens, and it is cheap, but its rather warm by default, not as critical with digital as it was with film, but i lost many a roll of Astia to it before I ditched the brand altogether and my results went way up.

The last thing, I have never had any luck with Sigmas customer service area, so when three seperate lenses broke from them, at three different times, twice they tried to charge me for repairing lenses less than 3 months old, and even then they came back broken. The third was replaced, albeit with a bad copy of the same lens.

The Tamrons a better bet, but my real advice is to try to stick with Pentax glass. Its much much better, even the 28-70 F/4. And honestly, if you want better DoF, get wider and closer, or use a prime. With digital, F/4 is not as big of a loss as it was with film. I'd still say stick to primes as much as you can though.

[kmccanta]

"With digital, F/4 is not as big of a loss as it was with film"

Huh? Can you please explain what you mean by this? I thought you lose the same with film or digital... f/2 is still two stops away from f/4 isnt it?

[SupremeMoFo]

But ISO is adjustable with a DSLR and film it's just whatever you bought.

[-spam-]

But ISO is adjustable with a DSLR and film it's just whatever you bought.

But i would still prefer to shoot at lower ISO if i can. You are far better off using fast glass to boost your shutter speed than just upping the ISO.

A nice, clean image wins hands down over a noisy one in my books. Especially if people are paying for your work, they dont want images where the detail is lost because you had to use 800 or 1600 where you could have gotten away with 200 or 400 with faster glass.

[roscot]

I'm not a huge fan of Sigma glass either, although I do own a 70-200 f2.8 EX. It is a pretty nice lens. It lacks a bit in contrast, and in some cases has rather harsh bokeh, but overall performs nicely. I find your comments about Sigma's customer service to be the complete opposite to my experience with Sigma USA. I had a 55-200 DC that the AF died on just as few days after the warranty expired. They not only fixed the lens under warranty (the AF worked better than new - another story), but had it back in a week. They rechipped my EF500 DG Super flash, and again had it back within 10 days. It would seem the Canadian branch is not so accommodating.

When I looked for a short zoom solution, I went with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di for a couple of reasons. first is Sigma's reputation for spotty QC (the other story). Second the Tamron is a know piece. Lots of people own it, and have used it extensively, and have nothing but praise for it. The Sigma and the Tamron are around the same price point, so I decided to go with known qualities.

I have not used it enough to give a complete review, but from what I have seen so far, the Tamron is a very nice lens. It has the image rendering qualities that are closer to Pentax glass than any other 3rd party lens I've tried.

Hope this helps.

[spirit of will]

I don't understand why Sigma always get such a bad press - I have never had anything but positive experiences with them. I've been using the 28-70 DF and then the 24-70 DG for ages on both film and digital. I couldn't afford the FA* 28-70 at the time and both these lenses have given excellent service and haven't disappointed in terms of quality. Yes, they aren't as good as the FA* version which I have now but in terms of value for money they are top notch!

The FA* 28-70 has meant that the Sigma is on ebay at the mo - not sure it's worth sending across the pond through!!!

Will

[philmorley]

Ok guys, what about this lens? Anybody had good results with it???

Thanks!!

Big and heavy and there are a number of different versions apparently the dg was a complete redesign and much better than the df. I tried 3! df versions and found them all soft and disappointing and bought the tamron sp 28-75 which is smaller, lighter, nice bokeh, almost no CA and its razor sharp!. (It competes with my sigma 105 macro lens for sharpness.) (its my favourite lens if you didn't guess)

Phil