Peter Jansen said: > My point is: if you're going to spend $5000 on a lens, > get a major brand name like Pentax. You're better off > to save a little more to get a better lens. Plus like > John said, there's always used glass for sale that's > cheaper than this Sigma.
The Pentax lens comes for $2000 more, 200mm shy. And with a 1.4x TC short one f/stop and I miss the magic f/5.6 that autofocus needs, while the Sigma is image stabilized. What makes me better off with the Pentax lens? The Pentax lens is actually $2500 more, but add $200-500 for a camera compatible with the Sigma lens. At that level you buy the lens, then get whatever camera it takes. > > Also consider that the resale on this lens will be > lousy when you want to get rid of it. I'm not sure it would be, but resale value is about the worst reason to make a buying decision. > --- "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Jansen said: > > > > > I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens. > > > > What's wrong with the Sigma?
