I had one Sigma zoom. I think it was designated EX 17-35/3.2-4.5 or something close to that. It didn't impress. I sold it when I bought the Pentax DA 16-45/4. No comparison. The Pentax lens is light years better. Paul
> > My personal opinion about Sigma lenses is that I've tried them on four > > separate occasions and on all four occasions ended up returning them, > > buying the manufacturers' lens instead. Sometimes after multiple > > exchanges. For straightforward defects or poor performance optically: > > their build quality is poor and variability between samples is high. So I > > don't buy or use Sigma lenses anymore. > > <personal_rant> > > I do have a fondness for some third-party lenses, notably some of the older > Vivitar (especially VS1), Tokina (especially AT-X), and Tamron (especially > SP) "cult classics", for example. However, I myself have never tried a > Sigma that I liked enough to keep for very long (build quality being the > usual main problem). > > Now, I will admit that I'm just an old photo dinosaur, and I don't have > much experience with any of the newest crop of Sigma lenses at all, but I > am just saying that my experience with Sigma lenses has not been > encouraging in the past, and I would not now go out of my way to try any > Sigma lenses in the present. > > I do understand that companies and product lines can change (even > dramatically) over time, and maybe Sigma lenses are now the greatest thing > since sliced bread - I really don't know. (As an example of changes over > time, one has to look no further than the downhill slide in some of the > products carrying the VS1 label over the last 10 or 15 years or so.) > > Maybe my attitude is being unfair to Sigma lenses. However, with so many > good lenses out there to choose from (Pentax as well as third-party), why > would I go out on a limb and try any lenses from a company that has not > impressed me at all previously? > > </personal_rant> > > Fred > >
