Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by [email protected], Feb 22, 2005.
Should I buy it? It's a Sigma, and comes with a 10 year warrenty and that nonsence. should I buy it?
is this the one?
that cheep? I just bought it for 207 on ebay. Seems great so far. Played with it a bit today. It's nice because you have the 28 side which is good enough for general photography and you still have the glass for the zoom. I'd definitely buy it.
it certainly has it's limitations, but damn look at the price. If you are just a regular joe who needs a decent lens then go for it.
give me a link...I'd like to get one!
Be prepared to familiarize yourself and set aside hours upon hours within Photoshop to compliment that lens.
I dont understand? what is wrong with it?
but yes it is that same lens from the link
what kind of limitations?
I can get a 70-300 for pretty cheap also... what one should I get? what has it's better use? I am just a average kid going to photography school (starting soon) and want a decent lens other than my 28-80
AHHH THE CHOICES!
Personally I would concentrate on a particular range, especially a range I normally shoot in. The 28-300 is going to be fine for the price... but you are getting what you pay for. Basically, you're turning your dslr into a nice expensive point and shoot. There are good lenses you can get for a good price with better glass then the one you're looking at. If image quality straight from your camera isn't a priority then the lens will be fine for you. I mention Photoshop because you'll be spending a lot of time adjusting the images... sharpness, color, contrast/brightness... etc...
the reason this lens isn't that great is because if you are shooting in a telephoto range, a telephoto lens (i.e. 70-300) has a better ability to capture your shot with the right color, contrast, and sharpness. Same goes for wide angle...a wide angle lens (12-24) would be best suited.
The 28-300 lens is a great lens for your everyday walk around lens but if you are truly looking for great quality, two separate lenses would be the best bet.
I understand, so basicly the 70-300 or 75-300 would be best?
5mm on the wide end isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
well yea lol
When I was playing with one in the store. I found the Wide Performance pretty poor. Pretty heavy distortions (Wide and Long). The AutoFocus Speed was dreadful and found the vignetting when fully extended pretty heavy.
What has been said by the others, I fully agree with. If you are just looking for a long lens to get you by then this is fine, but why not save your money and get a better lens that you will be happier with in the long run.
(Disclaimer: I am very critical of lenses. I find lenses more important than the camera. I normally get rid of camera's LONG before I get rid of a good lens.)
edit: if you are going to school for photography, then get a "normal" camera with all manual options (mine was a very old Rebel) and put the difference into the lenses. Like has been said before, you may need to compliment all your shooting with hours in post processing and that is never fun.)
OK, I've played with it now for a couple weeks and I have to say from wide to about 200 it's not that bad a lens, but it definitely does go soft after 200. You just don't get the sharp crisp lines you want. Honestly for me it works ok for the time being, but I may see how much I use it over the next year and see about exchanging it.
THis is a very cheap alternative that will get you some telephoto.