>Rob Brigham wrote: > >I would vote for the Sigma 24mm if you want big bang for bucks. There is one on ebay at the moment, and I think in general they sell for �40-�60. Don't worry whether you get the AF version or not, you will probably be using it for landscapes so will manually focus anyway?
>Personally I was sorely tempted with this as it is exteremely sharp, almost a rival for the FA*24. I decided that flare resistance was too much of an issue for wide angle landscapes and paid the extra money for SMC in the end. >Mechanically the Sigma does suffer from some problems so make sure you get a good sample. It is sooo cheap and sharp that it is probably worth the risk though. Rob, I hate to disagree with another PDMLer from the UK, because we might meet someday! However, I think the Sigma is a very bad choice. Optically, it is undeniably sharp, but it has severe barrel distortion and a noticeable yellow cast. The barrel distortion is so severe that this lens might be called a "semi-fisheye". The yellow cast is so bad that, if we were talking about an old Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4, we would be shedding tears. Here is a *brand new* lens that starts with more yellow cast than probably 80% of those particular 'yellowing' Super Takumars have after 30+ years! You mentioned the poor build. Here we agree, and Sigma should not be allowed to persuade us that an expensive-looking finish can take our attention away from the dreadful "workmanship" inside. The mechanically-driven AF versions all seem to be badly made, with many stories of gears stripping after a few months' use, but the manual focus versions are at least a little better in that respect. In order to keep my criticism constructive (!), I suggest that there are much better alternatives from Tamron (Adaptall 2) and Tokina. Best regards, John
