For some reason, I was thinking of the f1.8. I concur, $100 is way too much for the 2.8.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:07 AM Subject: RE: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II > I would second this. I researched this lens because I was seriously > considering it second hand. The build of these lenses is 'precarious' > shall we say, and I would not be keen to buy one which has been dropped > - certainly not if it has been self-fixed, who knows what gremlins may > be lurking. It is however a fine lens optically. The only problem is > flare as Alan says. You need to consider its use. For me landscapes > just needed the extra flare control that SMC gives and I went for the > FA*24, which is financially a whole different ballgame. > > I also agree with Alan on price. These go for £40-60 from a dealer with > warranty in the UK, and there are plenty of samples. $100 seems way > over the top, all considered. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 28 May 2003 07:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Sigma 24/2.8 super wide II > > > > > > I had the manual focus version and imho, it was fine > > optically. Colour & > > contrast were good. Flare control & built quality were > > lacking. The hood did > > nothing to the flare problem. Regular polarizer worked fine without > > vignetting. However, US$100 is expensive for what it is imho, > > especially it > > was dropped before. I certainly would not recommend any > > camera or lens which > > has been dropped before, except for parts. Fixed or not > > really doesn't > > matter. This lens is not a rare enough for the risk. > > > > regards, > > Alan Chan > > > > >I am given the opportunity to buy this lens for about $100 (in local > > >currency <g>). > > > > > >It goes as follows: > > >1. I'd get circular polarizer and UV filter and also a hood for this > > >lens. 2. The lens is K-mount with AF that works very find with MZ-5n > > >that I could handle yesterday. > > > > > >Unfortunately the previous owner (my co-worker, what a > > strange notion > > >just before very recently <g>) admits that the lens once fell on the > > >ground and had to be fixed. The damage was to the focusing > > ring so that > > >the lens couldn't focus because the ring was somewhat > > flabby. The owner > > >fixed that (I suppose himself) and by now it works good. The only > > >effect, according to him, of this event is the paint rubbed off some > > >inch or so off the focusing ring. You know, like a big scratch. > > > > > >It also can go as short as 18 cm from the object giving > > 'macro' up to > > >1:4 factor. So Sigma designates it as macro lens. It is also multi > > >coated. > > > > > >I took few shots and of course I intend to take this lens > > for the ride. > > > > > >Is it a worthy lens for this kind of money? I realize proper Pentax > > >optics would cost few times as much. And I really liked the angle. > > > > > >Please advise. I would especially appreciate comments from owners of > > >this very lens. > > > > > >Thanks in advance. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > > >
