I didn't mean to say that ALL Sigma 28-80s are better than ALL FA28-70s. I seem to have 2 exceptional 28-80s and one VERY bad sample of the 28-70. If anything it explains why lens opinions vary so much. My last 28-70 was quite good, this one is terrible. I don't think many people realise just how big the difference can be from one sample to the next. I didn't till I saw it with my own eyes.
I do understand the "jaw drop" reaction, it's what I had when I used the K135/2.5 after being used to the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5. The Takumar was what I could afford at the time, it was better than nothing and gave me a cheap way to decide whether the focal length was useful to me. Once I decided it was, I went for the next "best I could afford" version. That's the way my hobby has always worked, try it, and if I like it, go for a better one as money allows. That's how I worked my way up to an FA50/1.4, one 50 at a time. First one was under $10.00, the FA sure wasn't! Ain't hobbies fun? ;-) Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucas Rijnders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: A good zoom lens deal. > > > Op Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:53:35 +0100 schreef Don Sanderson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > <snip> > > > It actually performs better than the new 28-70/4 AL I just > > bought for $115.00, unfortunately I waited too long to return > > that one! ;-( > > <snip> > > And this is where we disagree: I've shot the sigma 28-80 almost > exlusively > for three years (kit-lens syndrome). Then I got a FA28-70/4, my jaw > dropped, and I never put the sigma on the camera again. And the > FA28-70/4 > (or something like an A50/1,7) isn't exactly expensive either... > > -- > Regards, Lucas >
