> anybody have any comments on or better still experience with this lens as
a cheeper alternative to the 35-350, the reviews seem positive in the U.K.
publications
>
No personal experience with it, but there has been a few discussions in the
past, I recall the best comment was that it was acceptable, but nothing
glorious about it.
While it might change in the future with better lens design, it is a general
rule today that large zoom ratio (10X in the Sigma case) does not contribute
to the overall quality a lens produce, it becomes a matter of compromise.
I had a Tamron 28-200 Super 4 years ago when I first got into the EOS gear,
while it produced acceptable images, I always felt it was soft and replaced
with the EF28-135 as soon as it became available.
But I have to admit I do miss the flexibility offered by the 28-200.
You maybe better off with the Canon EF35-350, there have been some good
comments about it, someone on this list has referred to it last year as his
photo journalist lens of choice.
You should try shooting some film with the Sigma if you can and then
determine if the quality is acceptable or suitable for your needs.
Regards,
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
