I think we may be at crossed purposes here. I was not talking about the new f1.8(?) big jobbie, but the old and long discontinued f2.8 version. >From your comment about the 'expensive-looking finish' I guess your comments relate to the new EX DG lens.
Not that I would denigrate your comments anyway. I must admit that I never used the Sigma to take pictures, I was just basing my opinion on extensive research done before making my 24mm purchase. The whole web consensus is that this is a great lens with poor mechanics. However, if you are talking about the new lens then I am surprised anyway. Your comments regarding distortion fly in the face of specific tests for just that type of thing in Amateur photographer, and is the first time I have heard it. Could you have had a bad sample? I do actually feel the EX lenses are well made though, and that their build problems are largely in the past and in the consumer lens segment anyway. I know many people using the macro lenses and the 70-200/100-300 EX lenses and they have no problems with build. I hope we do meet up soon and we can have a good debate over a few beers on this!!! Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: John Whicker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 28 January 2003 22:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 3rd party 24mm (was Speaking of M series lenses) > > > >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 > > > >
