View Single Post
  #26  
Old 29-07-2009, 04:23 AM
citivolus's Avatar
citivolus (Ric)
Refracted

citivolus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Carindale
Posts: 1,178
I've had the good and the bad from Sigma, and I learned that you get what you pay for. Back when I bought my first Canon SLR, I had a Sigma 135-400. I thought a lot of that lens in my blissful ignorance, until I bought some decent lenses and realised just how soft it was. Well, what did I expect from a lens with that kind of focal range? It wasn't really any worse than the 28-135mm Canon, but then, they were both bottom of the range as far as optical quality, but considering the price, well...

Later on I bought a used Sigma 300mm f/2.8 which I would still have had it been compatible with DSLRs (exceptional lens for the period), as well as a 15-30mm aspheric. The 15-30 is a great lens for the money, and I still have it. Not blazing fast at auto focus, not the quietest lens, but it does a good job at what it was designed for.

Anyway, what am I trying to say? Just like Canon or any other major camera manufacturer, Sigma has products that target different tiers in the market. I am now very careful about checking consumer reviews and actual performance specs before buying any lens, and if a lens with a good reputation under-performs after all this, you can bet the manufacturer and dealer will be hearing from me with an "opportunity" for them to put things right.
Reply With Quote