On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Fred wrote: > Well, there is still 3rd-party competition, of course, but I think > that too much of the 3rd-party gear nowadays simply represents "less > expensive versions" of camera makers' lenses. This is not to say that > there is not a need for good alternative economical lenses (many of > which are pretty good, I guess), but instead to suggest that it might > be better if at least some of the 3rd-party companies were coming out > with a lot of designs that the camera makers weren't (e.g., many of > the "original" line of VS1 lenses). But I digress...
I'd say that Sigma at least is trying to do this. Look at some of the lenses they offer... 50-500mm EX APO RF, 170-500mm APO ASPH, 17-35/2.8-4 for people who want a price compromise between f2.8 and f4 zooms, a 70-300mm that gets consistently better reviews than Pentax's 80-320mm *and* which offers 1:2 macro, 8mm f4 circular fisheye, 15mm f2.8 diagonal fisheye, 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, 180mm f3.5 1:1 macro... the list goes on. They were also the first, or among the very first, to come out with fast ultra-wides when the digital SLR craze first hit. Say what you want about their reverse-engineering and subsequent compatibility problems, but at least they seem to be trying to produce lenses that are not only different from those of their competition, but better, too. chris
