> > While I like Canon glass also, the glass of that Sigma was quite good. > But using it was absolutely annoying for anything but tripod based work > with time enough to focus. And I tend to use prime lenses in this case > anyway. It was one of my first lenses, the first good standard zoom I > bought. It replaced the horrible 35-80 f/4.5-5.6 that came with my first > camera. This wasn't an USM lens, but still light years faster AF than the > Sigma. The image quality was much better with the Sigma, though. And there > was no way for me to afford the original 28-80 f/2.4-4L at that time - the > 28-70 f/2.8L, it's successor, wasn't even introduced yet. Now that I ran > across a nice, used and affordable 28-70L some years ago, the > Sigma gathers > dust, haven't used it since. > > The only Sigma lens I still use is their old 90mm macro. I don't > do enough macro > shots to justify another macro lens, and it's not a bad lens > either, although > it goes to 1:2 only. > > Anyway, the optical quality of my Sigma lenses is nothing to > complain about. > The problems are mechanical and electronical ones. And these made me stop > buying Sigma lenses many years ago. It's ever been original Canon > lenses since. > > Thomas Bantel
Hi Thomas, Of all the third party lens makers Sigma has consistently been the only one with good optics and even they are sometimes spotty. Until they brought out the EX w/HSM lens series they were rather poor to say the least, mechanically and electronically. Sigma continues to be the leader among third party lens makers IMO much as Canon has been among the first party(?) lens makers for a given time period, at least during the current 35mm SLR AF period anyway. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
