[minahasa]

I just recently bought Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF DL Hyperzoom Macro, the filter size is 72mm. I have hard times finding references about this lens but I bought it anyway because I'm in need for a walk-around one-lens solution. I'm not hoping for a miracle, but is this lens good?

[ponyt27]

Hi... you can find your lens listed in the Third-Party Lens category under LENSES headings (top of this page)..... there are currently 4 reviews.
Hope this helps your search for info...

[minahasa]

Hi... you can find your lens listed in the Third-Party Lens category under LENSES headings (top of this page)..... there are currently 4 reviews.
Hope this helps your search for info...

Ok Maybe I just got confused, because mine had this "Aspherical IF" thing, and the title of the review doesn't, with no pic also. Whew..that bad eh?

I've google it, and becomes alot more confused because it seems there is a few version of this thing..

[Ratmagiclady]

These types of lenses are rarely to never wonders of image quality: in order to cover such a range of focal lengths, compromises, in short, are necessary: they're primarily made for convenience and flexibility, but so as long as your expectations are reasonable, then it's a matter of whether you like them or not.

A 28-200 was likely made as a 'does-all' zoom for film cameras. (Doing about the same job as the new Pentax 18-135 does for digital: and that latter costs around what, five hundred dollars, and doesn't have to cover as big of an image area. )

From the designation, I am going to guess it is of a newer series than my older 28-105/2.8-4 Sigma Aspherical. Which is a lens I get some really good results with in digital, but which does occasionally become tricky about digital compatibility in bright light, and kind of takes a firm hand and a lot of finagling in like what'd be high-contrast bright light situations.

My *suspicion* is that what you have may be a little better or a little worse in that regard. (Not sure what the DL stands for. Lower dispersion glass would be a goodness in this regard, though.

If the price was right, especially, you may as well check it out. (It's in your hands now, after all, and the *real* measure of 'a good lens' is what you can do with it. If you like it, you like it. If you're dissatisfied, then it's worth knowing if it's the optics holding you back or something you're doing, yes, but the best way to find that out is by using it. I think you can probably expect your best results around f8-F11 and probably nearer the middle of the zoom range, so try that.

As long as you expect a certain amount of distortion and maybe not the greatest sharpness ever, etc, you stand a good chance of liking it. If that's at all helpful perspective.

(Oh, and IF stands for 'internal focus,' it's about how the lens is designed. It usually means you get a less-telescopey lens and a non-rotating filter/hood. So that's a good point for yours. )

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 01-16-2011 at 11:47 AM.

[minahasa]

These types of lenses are rarely to never wonders of image quality: in order to cover such a range of focal lengths, compromises, in short, are necessary: they're primarily made for convenience and flexibility, but so as long as your expectations are reasonable, then it's a matter of whether you like them or not.

A 28-200 was likely made as a 'does-all' zoom for film cameras. (Doing about the same job as the new Pentax 18-135 does for digital: and that latter costs around what, five hundred dollars, and doesn't have to cover as big of an image area. )

From the designation, I am going to guess it is of a newer series than my older 28-105/2.8-4 Sigma Aspherical. Which is a lens I get some really good results with in digital, but which does occasionally become tricky about digital compatibility in bright light, and kind of takes a firm hand and a lot of finagling in like what'd be high-contrast bright light situations.

My *suspicion* is that what you have may be a little better or a little worse in that regard. (Not sure what the DL stands for. Lower dispersion glass would be a goodness in this regard, though.

If the price was right, especially, you may as well check it out. (It's in your hands now, after all, and the *real* measure of 'a good lens' is what you can do with it. If you like it, you like it. If you're dissatisfied, then it's worth knowing if it's the optics holding you back or something you're doing, yes, but the best way to find that out is by using it. I think you can probably expect your best results around f8-F11 and probably nearer the middle of the zoom range, so try that.

As long as you expect a certain amount of distortion and maybe not the greatest sharpness ever, etc, you stand a good chance of liking it. If that's at all helpful perspective.

(Oh, and IF stands for 'internal focus,' it's about how the lens is designed. It usually means you get a less-telescopey lens and a non-rotating filter/hood. So that's a good point for yours. )

First off, thank for enlightening me on this subject matter

I have just bought this lens off ebay two days ago, and will have to wait like 2 weeks or so before I have the chance to 'really feels it" that's why I'm asking this question so that I will kinda be ready for the worst..

Yes. I'm fully aware of the fact that long-zooming lenses are supposedly to have a limited capability to deliver the best of result. I have seen the review of this lens from a number of sites and concluded that I have to sacrifice something. This lens, however, according to some review, is better than Tamron's with the same focal length, but off course still under the great Pentax one.

I had my eye on 18-200 (an 18-250), but I have to be honest for what I had in my pocket, so this lens is the longest focal length that I'm capable on buying at the moment.

So, all of this 'weighting' leads me to this lens..

[clockwork247]

These types of lenses are rarely to never wonders of image quality: in order to cover such a range of focal lengths, compromises, in short, are necessary: they're primarily made for convenience and flexibility, but so as long as your expectations are reasonable, then it's a matter of whether you like them or not.

A 28-200 was likely made as a 'does-all' zoom for film cameras. (Doing about the same job as the new Pentax 18-135 does for digital: and that latter costs around what, five hundred dollars, and doesn't have to cover as big of an image area. )

From the designation, I am going to guess it is of a newer series than my older 28-105/2.8-4 Sigma Aspherical. Which is a lens I get some really good results with in digital, but which does occasionally become tricky about digital compatibility in bright light, and kind of takes a firm hand and a lot of finagling in like what'd be high-contrast bright light situations.

My *suspicion* is that what you have may be a little better or a little worse in that regard. (Not sure what the DL stands for. Lower dispersion glass would be a goodness in this regard, though.

If the price was right, especially, you may as well check it out. (It's in your hands now, after all, and the *real* measure of 'a good lens' is what you can do with it. If you like it, you like it. If you're dissatisfied, then it's worth knowing if it's the optics holding you back or something you're doing, yes, but the best way to find that out is by using it. I think you can probably expect your best results around f8-F11 and probably nearer the middle of the zoom range, so try that.

As long as you expect a certain amount of distortion and maybe not the greatest sharpness ever, etc, you stand a good chance of liking it. If that's at all helpful perspective.

(Oh, and IF stands for 'internal focus,' it's about how the lens is designed. It usually means you get a less-telescopey lens and a non-rotating filter/hood. So that's a good point for yours. )

I own the same 28-105 but in alpha mount, i think it's a pretty good lens considering I paid 80 for it.... cheapest thing that let me reach f/2.8... and I like the color rendition when I put my camera on vivid mode. On a crop sensor it's just fine for in house party and stuff, not sure if it's wide enough for landscapes shooting (i'm thinking naw haha), but hey, for 80 bucks or w/e the price these things are going for, it's not bad.

First off, thank for enlightening me on this subject matter

I have just bought this lens off ebay two days ago, and will have to wait like 2 weeks or so before I have the chance to 'really feels it" that's why I'm asking this question so that I will kinda be ready for the worst..

Yes. I'm fully aware of the fact that long-zooming lenses are supposedly to have a limited capability to deliver the best of result. I have seen the review of this lens from a number of sites and concluded that I have to sacrifice something. This lens, however, according to some review, is better than Tamron's with the same focal length, but off course still under the great Pentax one.

I had my eye on 18-200 (an 18-250), but I have to be honest for what I had in my pocket, so this lens is the longest focal length that I'm capable on buying at the moment.

So, all of this 'weighting' leads me to this lens..

The sigma 28-200 is quite easy to find info on, they built it for virtually all different mount, however from the alpha mount data base, it seems as if the tamron scores higher (but just take it with a grain of salt).

basically you're looking at these little things here
18-250
18-270
18-200
28-200
28-300

they're hyperzoom, bad distortion and soft... but they're more for convenient than anything else, in broad daylight just grab one of these and walk around and you're set.

Again the tamron is rated a tiny bit better than the sigma for these hyper zoom, can i ask how much you paid for yours? the 28-200 is noted for the better IQ than the 28-300 (which is just common sense i guess haha).

[KxBlaze]

I had the 18-200mm and like others have said, the IQ is good, not great, CA is bad at times, haven't noticed any bad distortion and the big positive is the convenience. Sometimes the 18-200 was the only lens I needed. It was really nice having to only carry a camera and one lens.

[Ratmagiclady]

I own the same 28-105 but in alpha mount, i think it's a pretty good lens considering I paid 80 for it.... cheapest thing that let me reach f/2.8... and I like the color rendition when I put my camera on vivid mode. On a crop sensor it's just fine for in house party and stuff, not sure if it's wide enough for landscapes shooting (i'm thinking naw haha), but hey, for 80 bucks or w/e the price these things are going for, it's not bad.

Well, landscapes don't have to be *wide,* but I mostly use primes, and don't tend to be as demanding about zooms to begin with. Mine serves as a 'poor gal's Tammie (meaning the 28-75 2.8) but a bit more on the long end is fun. I don't recommend them so much for beginners cause it's easy to get funny results if you aren't in mind of the optics themselves, but I've also had some really great results for a pretty-flexible zoom: there are some pretty sweet sweet spots in the zoom-aperture range, I think.

If I were to shell out on a zoom, *I'd* want more consistency, steady aperture, and other things, but I also think for beginners they'll want more consistency, too, even if not as demanding.

For a cheap move to cover my bases in Pentax,though, I pretty much like this one. Good enough for the papers with some shiny spots to get the good stuff if it happens to be mounted. (Wide open, no great shakes, but it gets there.

But, here's one of my poster-child shots for what this lens can do. Looks pretty darn impressive for a zoom in full-size, and I'm no kind of bug photographer. (This isn't even a 'macro' lens.) (Does keep happening, though: I'm just lazy about putting photos online. )



Pretty nice lens, just kind of chokes on bright light in ways that might confound the uninitiated.



For the original poster, I'd be a little less worried how long the lens goes, (or even how wide, though that'll matter more to many people) than what it does for you overall. Long shots can be cropped. (the shot above actually is, to a decent extent) In other words, if you want a superzoom lens, 200 is quite adequate: if it's good at 200, it's better than if it's not good at 200 but goes to 300.

The tricky part is that it's hit or miss, model to model, is all, so just don't overemphasize the range when you make any choices, is all.

If you want to go longer, you may want a dedicated lens for that, would be my thing about this, so see how happy you are with where you are in that way, first.

[minahasa]

The sigma 28-200 is quite easy to find info on, they built it for virtually all different mount, however from the alpha mount data base, it seems as if the tamron scores higher (but just take it with a grain of salt).

basically you're looking at these little things here
18-250
18-270
18-200
28-200
28-300

they're hyperzoom, bad distortion and soft... but they're more for convenient than anything else, in broad daylight just grab one of these and walk around and you're set.

Again the tamron is rated a tiny bit better than the sigma for these hyper zoom, can i ask how much you paid for yours? the 28-200 is noted for the better IQ than the 28-300 (which is just common sense i guess haha).

Yes it is quite easy to find any Sigma 28-200 review on the net, as a matter of fact that is what makes it harder to find one particular review for the lens that I bought There's differences in focusing type, filter size, etc.

I'm sure that you are aware that there is like 3 - 4 versions of this (while I'm not really sure that I'm right haha) , and this particular type, is considered by some consumer's review is better than the Tamron's, especially at price/performance ratio (Tamron's usually priced higher). You are right about the 'scores' in a more scientific review, though.

[clockwork247]

Yes it is quite easy to find any Sigma 28-200 review on the net, as a matter of fact that is what makes it harder to find one particular review for the lens that I bought There's differences in focusing type, filter size, etc.

I'm sure that you are aware that there is like 3 - 4 versions of this (while I'm not really sure that I'm right haha) , and this particular type, is considered by some consumer's review is better than the Tamron's, especially at price/performance ratio (Tamron's usually priced higher). You are right about the 'scores' in a more scientific review, though.

I only saw 2 version on the sony alpha's data base, the 28-300 has many more version... basically sigma add some "stuff" and it's indicated by abbreviation like DG, APO ect... read up on those stuff and see if it's something you want (same thing with the tamron lens)... simple way to look at it is that the more stuff they add in behind the len's name the better haha.

[minahasa]

I had the 18-200mm and like others have said, the IQ is good, not great, CA is bad at times, haven't noticed any bad distortion and the big positive is the convenience. Sometimes the 18-200 was the only lens I needed. It was really nice having to only carry a camera and one lens.

Thank you for the heart-warming review

..so see how happy you are with where you are in that way, first.

Well, your great sample shot there really is the beginning of my happiness since I photograph nature a lot..

[stanycjw]

Hi .....
My name is Peter Rom from Singapore, I was given this "Sigma 28-200mm ASPHERICAL IF" to me from a friend. He bought it some 15 years ago.

When I mount it onto my Sony Alpha a55, this lens ONLY work as a manual lens ( I need to switch off the Auto focus on my camera body) before I can use it, it's working perfectly from 28-200mm BUT the moment I turn on the auto focus on my camera body, it makes lot of noise ( cracking mechanically sound) like the camera is going to break and it will not work.

I do not really knows what's happening, is the lens not an Auto focus for Sony or I have to send it to the Sigma work shop to do some kind of electronics modification? before it can be use on A55 Sony?

Please enlighten me or if you have this similiar issue what have you done?
Will it be very expensive to it it service ?

It is worth doing or buy another that work with AF on Sony camera body?

Thankyou so much and hope to have some return reply as soon as possible and it will be really appreciated.

Thanks again
Peter

My email: stanycjw@yahoo.com.sg

[minahasa]

Hi .....
My name is Peter Rom from Singapore, I was given this "Sigma 28-200mm ASPHERICAL IF" to me from a friend. He bought it some 15 years ago.

When I mount it onto my Sony Alpha a55, this lens ONLY work as a manual lens ( I need to switch off the Auto focus on my camera body) before I can use it, it's working perfectly from 28-200mm BUT the moment I turn on the auto focus on my camera body, it makes lot of noise ( cracking mechanically sound) like the camera is going to break and it will not work.

I do not really knows what's happening, is the lens not an Auto focus for Sony or I have to send it to the Sigma work shop to do some kind of electronics modification? before it can be use on A55 Sony?

Please enlighten me or if you have this similiar issue what have you done?
Will it be very expensive to it it service ?

It is worth doing or buy another that work with AF on Sony camera body?

Thankyou so much and hope to have some return reply as soon as possible and it will be really appreciated.

Thanks again
Peter

My email: stanycjw@yahoo.com.sg

I have a bad feeling that your lens AF mechanism is broken. Yes, this kind of lens is old, but I do get mine perfectly working. About servicing, I think even Sigma technician today will have hard times doing it, mostly because of the parts should be unavailable today.

[stanycjw]

@ minahasa

Thankyou so much, so looks like I have too dismantle to see what I can too myself.

I called Sigma and was told the same thing "very old" lens might not able to repair. So just switch my Camera A55 to manual and use it as a manual lens is the way to go.

Thanks again for your feedback.
Peter