Sorry Mary Jo :) I've noticed that the Sigma is a bit longer in the autofocus dept. It was too tempting though...a sigma for $250.00 or the Nikon for $800.00. I'm curious though, I thought canons did the focusing on the body whilst the nikons had the focusing built into the lenses? If that's the case, why would the sigmas be slower on canons?
On 1/1/07, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >My choice for an > >all around lens has been a Sigma 18-200mm. Like Mary said, you do > >lose some quality with the third party lenses, but I'm so amateur I > >don't notice it much. > > Yeah, it's one of those things that until you spend the money on a good lens, > you will usually be happy with what you have. I'm so used to the fast and > quiet Canon autofocus that I can't deal with the really slow and noisy > Sigmas, even though they otherwise sometimes have fairly decent lenses for > the money, like the one you suggest. Of course, I do a lot of action shots > and wildlife, so slow AF is a killer for me regardless. ;-) > > You can find good reviews of lots of different types of lens at dpreview.com > and dcresource.com. > > I'm Mary Jo, btw. ;-) It's all my first name (blame my mother for that one!) > > > --- Mary Jo > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:223381 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
