There seems to be a lot of 2 to 10 year old Sigma, Tamron, and etc. AF Zoom lenses out in Lensforsale Land which sell for between $10 and $150. Some are dogs sure and really deserve the $10 price tag they wear. But some are really nice! And it seems like the reputation of the ten-dollar-dogs rub off on the good ones too. Or is it that makers just flooded Lens Land with every different model variation they released? I dunno, tiz a mystery.
What do you guys think?
Do you have any or many such lenses?
Which ones are good and which ones are dogs?
Are there any Sigma museum type sites up? (I've never come across one.)
Got any images from the ones you own, good or bad? (Post'em up bros!)
With the Sigma DL 70-300mm f/4 (Macro) between 280mm and 300mm, stopped down one full click, it fairly consistently produces results like below in similar lighting at between approximately 20m and 150m focus (subject) distance. I like the look is fairly interesting to me anyway:
The more I zoom the more color it seems to have too - isn't that like, the opposite of usual with long-ish zooms? Here's some wide open samples which show this - Or, thinking now, could it be because the "WO aperture" closes down as the zoom increases? These are at 70mm, 200mm, and 300mm all wide open from about 4m away from the focus point:
The CA is a lot less than one would expect too I think. Here's two extreme crops from it (the duck one is nearly 100% - I think ~97%) both on the long end:
Typical high contrast shows no CA at all. Here's three; one at 300mm, 180mm, and 70mm although these are stopped down a little less than one stop from wide open but they didn't need to be really - WO is the same deal (the first one has a little motion blur in it - sorry):
The other lens in the top shot (Sigma 24-70mm f/3.5D HF Aspherical) kind of amazed me (easily done) the first few times I took it out. It typically sells depending on condition, for about $150 - $250 - so probably the cheapest or one of the cheapest, 24-70mm zooms on the planet. Yet the results are pretty good IMO. I guess not to be forgotten is that I'm on a 2:1 crop sensor. So I dunno how the corners look on a FF although I would assume APS-C to be almost exactly the same. Here's a few shots from it:
At 24mm, 45mm, and 70mm less than a half a stop down from WO:
Here's another one which I think is pretty decent and sells for $120 in excellent condition or $40 in poor but usable condition. The Tamron 100-300 f/5-6.3 Macro 4:1
I have found the Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 (non-APO) to be a pretty decent lens and certainly good value for the money. It gets close enough to make some interesting not-quite-macro shots, and is fairly sharp even on the long end. It is not of any interest to me any longer since I now have a pile of expensive glass, but I will happily recommend it to someone who needs an affordable 70-300 or similar.
Yup, that's another good one.... Err, actually there are like 4 or 5 different version/revisions of Sigma's 70-300. There's one (with a red ring - or is it the gold ringed one?) that is actually a dog... especially at the long end. I have it, I should look... and it does suck! I have two other 70-300s from Sigma too and they're very good. One is APO and the other has no color rings on it at all.
)
I have two other 70-300s from Sigma too and they're very good. One is APO and the other has no color rings on it at all. 