[allill]

I have found one for a good price but haven't seen many reviews on it. Does anyone have anything to say about tthe Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG?

Thanks in advance.

[Shashinki]

It's cheap.

[allill]

It's cheap.

Cheap as in it's crap?

[Shashinki]

Nah, I was mostly joking. :P It's good enough for the price. All in all good value for the money I say.

However, I see you've already covered 17-125mm already so a 70-300mm APO would give you a better IQ for the bucks ratio in my opinion. The 28-300's design is a little outdated these days, and such a long zoom-range often gives slightly worse optical quality than shorter ones. (such as the 70-300)

If you feel that carrying two lenses is too much of a bother, it's a good choice. Link to test: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-28-300mm-f35-63-DG-Macro

If you like this zoom-range: The Tamron 28-300mm VC is a better, but more expensive alternative.

---

Last edited by Shashinki; 11-30-2008 at 07:40 PM.

[allill]

Nah, I was mostly joking. It's good enough for the price.

However, I see you've already covered 17-125mm already so a 70-300mm APO would give you a better IQ for the bucks ratio in my opinion.

What is a good price to pay for either? I can get the 28-300mm for $150 local.

[Shashinki]

Ooh I wouldn't know about that.. the prices around my part of the world are really different. But the 70-300 APO is alot cheaper here than the 28-300. The 28-300mm costs around $350 and the 70-300 APO costs $250..

$150 sounds like a really good deal to me.

[Duh_Vinci]

Here is my opinion of this lens for what it's worth (at least of my old time Canon version) - bought it for travel purposes, had it for a week and quickly returned:

I think I kept 2-3 photos from it total
Very soft wide open
200-300 way soft, pretty much useless imo
Terrible zoom creep
Washed out colors

I replaced that lens with Sigma 18-200 DC, which was much better performer (yet still does not have too high of rating in superzooms).

IMO, if you can find Tamron 28-200 XR IF (DI or Non-DI) - much better lens in all aspects as far as superzooms go, and a fair price for new or pristine Tamron should be $100-$150

Regards,
D

[junkdon]

I bought the 28-300, thinking that one lens would cover most situations. It's slow, and soft wide open and at full zoom, it improves stopped down. It's also very heavy for a walk around lens.

It's a very versatile lens, I keep it on the camera if I'm in a situation where I may need to change focal length quickly, and don't have time to change the lens (for example parades). It's especially useful where there is plenty of light to play with, so you can use it stopped down.

But mostly, I find I shoot either wide or tele, so more and more I keep my DA21 on the camera, and change to an SMC 135 or 200 when I need the reach - image quality is much better.

In retrospect, I should have saved the money I spent on this lens, and bought a less ambitious, but higher quality lens - perhaps the 70-300 sigma, or an SMC 300.

Hope that helps.

Don

[jglover]

What is a good price to pay for either? I can get the 28-300mm for $150 local.

For about the same money, you can get a brand new Tamron 70-300 which will be a *much* better lens..........