 |
|
|
Vandergaze
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $90.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light, very small, cheap to replace if it breaks, acceptable performance by 4.5/5.6
|
|
Cons:
|
2.8-4.0 unusable, because simply way too soft
|
|
|
Horrible zoom lens for less than a benjamin. Focussing is pretty fast.
Wide Open Aperture is simply not usable and the Corners and edges are downright devastating and feel like pictures made with a little compact digital camera.
|
|
 Jun 10, 2010
|
|
btaller
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $89.99
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap Price Point, Good Focal Range, Small Filter Size
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic Feel, the lens hood when reversed blocks all functionality, Soft 2.8
|
|
|
Purchased for a Nikon D90, I originally purchased this lens as a walking around lens since I didn't have a mid-range zoom lens. I was a little disappointed by the sharpness of the images at lower apertures. So it sat in my bag for a while.
Then I started shooting more close-up and macro work so I bought a BR-2a (reversing ring). I then bought a 58mm-52mm step down ring and mounted this lens reversed. Suddenly this lens found a purpose. Reversed the zoom range acts as a focus. Detail is sharp with the Aperture wide open a F22. So this is now my main close up reverse lens. And my recommendation is based on this use.
If using this normally, my suggestion is to test it out in all sorts of conditions first to determine the lens's limitations. It's a decent hobbyist lens but does not have the sharpness of a lens in the higher price range.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2009
|
|
jwmelrose
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap especially for an f/2.8, light, good focal range to be a workhorse lens
|
|
Cons:
|
very frustrating lens hood. You have to flip it around (as sigma often does) to put it on and you can't use the lens without doing this because it blocks the zoom ring when stored. Also when the hood is on you can't take off and remove the lens cap easily. also, it feels cheaply made and may not be perfectly sharp or fast to focus....but its so inexpensive.
|
|
|
despite the size of my negatives paragraphs, I really do like this lens and recommend it, so long as you want to use it situations where fast lens changes and fast focusing aren't needed.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2008
|
|
Zuazua
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jun 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 215
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $53.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
So far after 1 day, Lightweight, 2.8, Size, Sigma Reputation, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
F/4, plastic mount,
|
|
|
Purchased used on ebay, although Im use to canon metal mounts, Im not sure yet if this is a negative having a plastic mount. The lens hood is awkward for me. I is mounted to the frame, so when use zoom (at least with this lens when you zoom the lens extends another 1.5-2inches) the lens hood stays put and the zoom moves within it. Dont know if I made myself clear. Picture a turtle. Head move in and out put the shell stays put. Viola. Thats what I meant. I'll thoroughly test this lens under my own personal (non professional experiences) test and see what i come up with.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2008
|
|
GraphyFotoz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 805
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $50.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
f Speed better than any in this $ range,Built much better than Canon cheaper lens,For the price quality is VG,58mm filter size saves a few bux.
|
|
Cons:
|
In this price range and f speed hard to find any!
|
|
|
Dunno how anyone can complain about this lens?
At the price and the pretty fast f2.8-4 it's a darn good deal!
I've been using the (Non DG) for lil over a year and it's sharp and no issues to speak of.
I'm looking to upgrade to a DG version for my main and keep the old one as a BU.
Doesn't weigh a ton so it's a pleasure to use as a carry around lens.
Build quality is SUPER compared to the Canon 28-80mm II f3.5-5.6. which is in the same price range. Had that one for awhile it was built like a plastic toy.
F's were very slow at f3.5-5.6.
If your on a budget and want a nice (non junk)lens....this one is for you!
If you want something better.....look at the Sigma 28-70mm EX DG f2.8...but it's gonna cost ya a min of $300US
Bit heavy to lug around.
Also 67mm filters are a lil costly.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2007
|
|
Mere_Image
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $89.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
(DG version) Good color, contrast, detail; light-weight, solid build quality. Good optics overall.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, considering the price point of $69 to $89.
|
|
|
(DG version) This lens is a great starter or backup lens (especially for the money). My Nikon D50's out-of-camera pictures seemed a little soft, however post processing uncovered a great amount of sharpness and detail (I was very surprised!). The softness level from the out-of-camera pictures is great for portraits etc. without PP.
Overall a good lens for the money and a great starter/backup lens!
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2006
|
|
SergioCR
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2006
Location: Costa Rica
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $53.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap price, normal quality optics. f2.8-4. Autofocus is fast and accurate. Metal Mount. (Non-DG Version)
|
|
Cons:
|
Very noisy focusing. Front elements rotates.
|
|
It's not the sharpest lens you can buy but for less than $60 whan can you complaint?
Buyed this lens to use an EOS Rebel G as a replacement for my mom's kodak p&s. Can't be happyer with them and if it brokes it's ok... 
Provides a very good image quality in film at normal 6x8" and normal to average using digital. Some CA's present.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2006
|
|
patrickb87
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
bargain
fast at the wide end
okay auto focus
|
|
Cons:
|
soft images at tele end wide open, ghosting at times
build feels a little cheap
|
|
|
This is my first lens for my first DSLR (D50) and it seems like a pretty good purchase.
I chose to pick this up over the kit lens and the prime as it seemed like it would do okay in low light conditions compared to the kit lens while giving up some of the wider focal lengths of the kit lens that these D50's come with.
The image gets noticably ghosty/almost softlike at the telephoto end of things wide open, specificly on small subjects. This seems like a good little starter lens for the money.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2006
|
|
ga1lyons
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 299
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $70.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, range
|
|
Cons:
|
Searches in low light. little soft, "high speed" is still slow, flare, CA
|
|
|
I got this lense when I first got my 20D. I cant complain about it as it has been too good to me and is my usual walk around lense, still. I bought it as a cheap lense to get to know my camera with and i've kept it far longer then I ever thought I would.
If you put it on a tripod you'll not have a problem. It is a good lense if you have plenty of light and at the price it is an insignificant purchase. Get one just to have incase something happens to a lense you care about.
Use the hood
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2006
|
|
Majikthize
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
as above
|
|
Cons:
|
as above plus very poor flare control
|
|
|
Since my first review, I have discovered this lens' second Achille's heel - in addition to noticeable barrel distortion, it also suffers from terrible flare when shooting into the sun. Definitely the worst lens I've ever seen in this respect. Really unusable when shooting toward the sun in early morning or late afternoon.
I still think this lens is a bargain, and I use it for general event and landscape work. But, I change lenses if the sun's going to be anywhere inside the frame or shining on the front element.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2005
|
|
bluwing
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 129
|
|
Review Date: Apr 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, Weight, Good sharpness and detail, Good fit and finish of the lens, smooth zooming. Also does not hunt for focus! It is good in low light and in bright light outdoors.
|
|
Cons:
|
I have not found any.
|
|
|
I got this lens as part of a combo deal. The way my luck has been going with lenses lately I was not keen on buying any lens from anybody.
I was truly suprised when I saw the results from this lens. There was no barrel distortion as the other person reported. The pictures were sharp and colorful right out of the camera. They did not need that much post processing.
I use this lens on my Canon 300D. When I press half way on the shutter button the lens focuses right away, No hunting or long focus times. It is fast. For the price of this lens you should not pass on this lens. It is a good compliment to any collection.
People make a BIG mistake when they rate lenses. They always compare them to "L" Glass. This lens is not priced like them, Nor should be compared to one. This is an Excellent lenses for anybody. For someone on a budget that would like a faster lenses but can't afford the BIG BUCK Versions, Here is the lens to add to your camera or lens collection. It would be a great walk around lens also.
bluwing
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2005
|
|
Majikthize
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $60.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Super-cheap, decent sharpness, large aperture, light weight, smooth zooming, reliable AF, hood included.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noticeable barrel distortion at all focal lengths, somewhat low contrast, plastic lensmount.
|
|
|
Bought this as a disposable/backup lens, and fully expected it to be a lemon, as more expensive Sigma lenses I've owned have had major focus & sharpness issues. Was pleasantly surprised to find this is actually a very usable lens. Sharpness is decent on my Canon 1Ds even at the edges of the frame (!). AF is fairly quick, and, more importantly, it's pretty sure and accurate - not prone to hunting or front- or back-focus. Contrast is somewhat low compared to my Canon L-series lenses, but fixable in Photoshop. The most glaring weakness is the barrel distortion at all focal lengths. It's not obnoxious in candid and landscape shots, but definitely limits the lens' usefulness for architectural photos. The zoom ring is a little stiff but turns smoothly, unlike a couple of other Sigmas I had that were quite sticky. The wide aperture makes for a reasonably bright viewfinder. This must be the best lens you can buy new for under $100. Street price is around $100, but new ones with warranty are regularly going on Ebay for $50-60. A good lens, not a great lens, but definitely a great bargain.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2005
|
|
erbavic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 26, 2004
Location: Italy
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Leggerezza, rapiditą, costo, paraluce , buon controllo della distorsione anche a 28mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Baionetta in plastica, non IF, feeling non appropriato, resa dei colori pessima
|
|
|
Ho acquistato questo obbiettivo e sono rimasto sorpreso dalle sue prestazioni, pił che oneste visto il prezzo. Pił rapido nell'autofocus del 28-70mm Nikkor 3,5-4,5 sulla mia N90S. Devo ancora fare una comparazione, sebbene del Nikkor (pagato solo 114 euro su ebay) mi piace la grande incisivitą. In fondo il Sigma ha solo mezzo diaframma di luminositą in pił....ma se si rovinasse non ne farei una tragedia. Il Nikkor....mi dispiacerebbe.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
13
|
89161
|
Jun 10, 2010
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
77% of reviewers
|
$73.18
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.27
|
9.45
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
