Hello.

For what it's worth, about $300 i think it's a great value. Plus, the photodo site gave it a pretty good rating. i am just wondering if anyone have any first hand experience with this lens? I am thinking of purchasing this to supplement my prime Nikkors lenses and the 80-200 f2.8 AFD Nikkor when i don't want to carry loads of lenses around or don't have time to change the lenses.

-- picshooter (picshooter@juno.com), March 08, 1999

Answers

I have this lens and have been overall happy with except for one thing This very day I have shipped it off to Sigma America because it stopped being able to focus to infinity when zoomed past 50mm (or if set at infinity you could not turn the zoom ring past 50mm). It seemed to be built fairly well and it had no problems communicating with my A2 but we'll see what happens when I get it back. (i.e. does it actually get fixed.) Optically if found it to be good for my uses. It does have some barrel and pincushion distortion on the short and long end respectively which can make senics a little challenging. But that is typical of zoom lenses.

So now as I ramble, let me give my impressions. As I said, until it crapped out on me I was quite happy with it. I was using it as my primary lens since it gave me a little more flexibility than my 50mm 1.8. While I have not had anything blown up (I guess most of my photos suck) stuff seems to come out in focus over the entire print. I also shot some homemade test targets and looked at the negatives under about 10x magnifcation. Stuff was fairly well in focus all over the negative. At f/8 everything seemed to be crisp.

Mechanically, I was happy with it until it had to send it off. Both the focus ring and the zoom ring rotated smoothly. The focusing ring was a little too easy to turn (underdamped) but nice and wide and MF was not difficult.

If I had to, I probably would not by it again because it seemed to crap out on me. I would save more money and get the Canon 28-70/2.8 But since that is more than three times the price, I would have to do some serious thinking.

If you want more info, e-mail me and I will try to be more explicit. I am not trying to discourage you from buying it, just giving you my impressions. I don't generally jump on the All Sigma's suck bandwagon but I do believe that you get what you pay for. I will also say this, it is as least as good in build quality as the canon lenses in this price range and does give you at least two more stops of light gathering ability enabloing you to get a nice shallow depth of field for portrait type work though 70mm may be a little on the short end.

-- Nikolas Gregory (nik@mit.edu), March 08, 1999.

A few months ago, I've been thinking serious about this lens too. But then nikon announced the 28-105/3.5-4.5. I waited until the release of the new Nikon, it saw a very good test last month and I bought the Nikon. I know that the Nikon is a full stop slower than the Sigma, but on the other hand you can use the Nikon with excellent results from f5.6. Besides the Nikon zoom range is more impressive and there's a very useful macro setting (1:2). When I occasionnaly need the speed I use my old but excellent 50/1.8 AF. If you like a compact lens - for a good price, with excellent results, top built quality, fine zoom range and resale value - then it looks very obvious: buy the Nikon !

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), March 09, 1999.

I have had the same problems with Sigma zooms as mentioned.

-- Nico Mostert (mostert@es.co.nz), September 02, 1999.

Hi,

I like mine well enough although I wish I had something a little smaller/lighter for my A2. At the time it was all I could afford because I spent the rest of my money on a Canon 300 f4Lis. I know its apples and oranges, but that Ultrasonic motor sure is sweet. The focusing is almost completely silent. It makes my Sigma sound old and cranky. One nice thing about the Sigma is the 77mm filter size.

-- Jim England (jrengland@osprey.scmcm.edu), May 17, 2000.