Cotty wrote: >>I have stopped reading Pop Photo for at least two years, but for those that >>I read in the past, I can't remember any poor lens reviewed by them. My >>advise is, if you have other choice, stay away from Sigma. If you want a >>decent 300mm, go for a prime 300mm. > >This may well have been the advice up until a few years ago. The Sigma >'EX' line if lenses are built a little better, using better optics. I >have the 70-200 EX 2.8 and it is a very good lens indeed. Recent reviews >of the 20, 24 and 28 EX lenses in AP show that Sigma is now producing >glass to rival the best. The 20 1.8 in particular scored very well. > >Having said that, in modern lens construction, it would seem that >plastics and polycarbonate-type materials are frequently used, presumably >in an effort to cut weight, and cost. The Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 is such a >lens. By comparison, my Tokina 28-70 2.6/2.8 AT-X Pro II lens feels much >more like the lenses I have come to know and love from Pentax. Sturdy >metal construction makes it feel invincible, whereas the Sigma I would >handle a bit more gingerly - give it a bit more care. > >In the end it comes down to personal experience, and what you are used >to. But as far as glass quality, the Sigma EX line should now lose the >old Sigma stigma of old.
I have the Sigma EX 300/2.8 and it's a massive and well-built lens. Hardly any plastic used in its construction as far as I can tell and it's optically excellent. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
