I have one Sigma zoom and I don't think too much of it. It's the 35-70mm f3.4~4.5 Zoom Master. I prefer the Takumar 28-80mm f3.4~4.5 which according to some has barrel wobble - mine doesn't and takes good pictures.
But to get to the point. One of the best lenses I have ever used is the Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro EX I got from Al's Cameras a few years ago. I've used a lot of lenses, some cost tens of thousands of dollars and never left the laboratory, others were on cameras like my long series of Alpa Reflex models going back to the late 1950s. The lens I used most was the Kern Macro Switar 50mm f1.7. A great lens that easily resolved 250 line pairs on high resolution plate in my lab. But I've taken better pictures with the Sigma on an ME Super, P30 or P30T than I ever managed with the Switar. The MTF of this lens, from the Hasselblad lab in Sweden, can be found on the www. I can't remember where it is, but this lens has a rating of 4.2 and 4.8 is about as good as you can get; only one lens, a Tamron or Canon telephoto(?), reached 4.6 (was it?). One of you will know where all this information can be found. Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:46 PM Subject: RE: Pentax FA / Tamron vs Sigma 28-200's > Man she would just love the 24-90!!! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dick graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 09 September 2002 15:49 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Pentax FA / Tamron vs Sigma 28-200's > > > > > > Rob, Toni also told me that the 28-135 Sigma is much better > > than the 28-80. > > > > DG > > > > > > > > At 03:31 PM 9/9/02 +0100, you wrote: > > >Well let me say that the biggest improvement I have ever seen in my > > >photography was moving from the Sigma 28-80 to a Sigma 28-70 > > EX. The > > >difference was stark - I suddenly realised that many of my > > older photos > > >werent bad because I was no good, but because they were soft, had no > > >detail and no contrast/colour. Even though the 28-70 is not > > a patch on > > >the best lenses out there, I could not believe the improvement! > > > > > >I am not saying all Sigma consumer lenses are rubbish, I love the > > >70-300APO (for the money), and I think the 28-135 is reasonably well > > >regarded but anyone who tells you they love the 28-80 is > > either lying > > >or doesn't know what they are talking about. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dick graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: 09 September 2002 15:29 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Pentax FA / Tamron vs Sigma 28-200's > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't be so quick in condemning Sigma consumer grade > > lenses. Check > > > > out Toni Lankerd's stuff on www.photocrituque.net , look > > under "list > > > > by photographers" ,especially the third one down "ambience". > > > > Toni is a long > > > > time PUG contributor and a field editor for the e magazine Nature > > > > Photographer. She uses Pentax bodies and Sigma 28-80 and > > > > 28-135 consumer > > > > grade lenses as her main stays, and she tells me she loves > > > > the glass. Both > > > > of these lenses have had good lens test reports from Pop Photo. > > > > > > > > > > > > DG > > > > > > > > At 12:33 PM 9/7/02 +1000, you wrote: > > > > >The general feeling is that the original Tamron/Pentax were > > > > dogs. The > > > > >later Tamron is much better. I know little about the Sigma > > > > other than I > > > > >would never buy a Sigma consumer lens - which this is. > > > > > > > > > >Bob > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > >From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:26 PM > > > > >Subject: Pentax FA / Tamron vs Sigma 28-200's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello out there in Pentax-Land. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any experience with both of the > > following lens > > > > > > designs, and (if so) could compare them - > > > > > > > > > > > > The Pentax FA / Tamron 28-200/3.8-5.6 (I understand that > > > > these are > > > > > > the same lens) > > > > > > > > > > > > - versus - > > > > > > > > > > > > The Sigma 28-200/3.5-5.6 > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I understand that these "do-everything" (<g>) lenses are > > > > > > chock-full of compromises, but nonetheless I am > > > > interested in their > > > > > > comparative optical and build qualities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
