>From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Sigma 28-135 f/3.8-5.6
>Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:10:05 -0500
>
>In general I don't like zooms and avoid using them whenever possible but I
>must
>admit that this is one of the two that I own (the other being the famous
>SMC-F
>70-210).
>I bought the Sigma 28-135 about six seeks ago to replace my Tamron 28-200
>as my
>general "photojournalism" lens for doing sports photography for my running
>web
>page (http://www.robertstech.com/run.htm if anyone's interested). I came to
>find
>the Tamron's lack of sharpness at focal lengths over 100mm just too
>bothersome.
Is there really much advantage here? According to the Pop Photo test, the
Sigma, while not terrible at 135, is not exactly great either. The Tamron,
both in my experience and in the Photodo test, is reasonably good up to 135.
You may need to stop down to f/11 to get decent results at 200mm, but with
bright light and 400 film, it can still be useful. It may be true that the
Sigma is a bit more compact, but the weight is almost the same (only 1.5
ounces lighter). So, balancing the 200mm end against the Sigma's greater
macro magnification, it's not clear to me that you're better off with the
Sigma than the Tamron.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit www.pdml.net
and follow the directions.
