Monday, January 10, 2005, 1:40:41 AM, Geheim wrote:
G> The comments so far do not surprise me much. It was just an idea I had
G> :) I'm hoping someone that has used one of these zooms will chime in
G> in the next few days.
Hi Chad, you can search the archives of the list (www.pdml.net) and
find there my post about the Sigma 2.8 18-50 DC. it's a rather long,
several pages long result of some testing and observations, so I won't
clutter the list with it again. Or I can send it to you directly, if I
can find it in my computer. When time permits, I can post some images
from my tryout of the lens. But images aren't worth a thousand words,
unfortunately, and are uncomparable to other images as there are too
many variables (my camera is wholy different brand, I use different
raw converter, which does some adaptive sharpening or something
similar, et cetera...)
Of the other lens, the 17-35 2.8-4 EX DG. I have asked about this lens
a lot as it is very cheap to come by used. There are now two
versions, but for Pentax probably only the first version is made (the
second, had HSM added in Nikon mount, and changed cosmetics). I don't
know if they differ optically.
But several pros here used it, for news work, before their employers gave
them something better, and I have asked few times about it. Based
on what I heard from people who know what a good lens is, I would
advise against this lens. According to all I asked, it
exhibits many optical aberations, making it a "bow-wow" lens, in other
words a dog (or a cat, depending on your point of view <g>). It was
also a bit flimsey construction. Again, it might have been sample
variation or their hyperbole,
Good light!
fra
