Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 8, 2005, 2:49 PM   #1
SinRastro's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 93

I have the chance to test the SIGMA 28-200 IF 3.5/5.6 and it´s really really poor quality.

Even compared with the cheap lens 18-55 that came with the RebelXT kit, not to mention when compared with the Canon 75-300 USM IS.

I´m willing to get the Canon 28-200 USM, anyone have this lens? I would love to see an Out Of Cam pic (actual size).

Thanks for your time

SinRastro is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 8, 2005, 7:36 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,402

For the most part what you experienced with the Sigma 28-200 is what you'll get with anyone's version of this type lens, even Canon's version. There's a reason they sell so inexpensively- you're best off going with at least a two zoom setup if you are concerned at all about the quality of your pictures. 28-200 zooms of this type are best avoided by anyone other than strict point & shooters who don't mind spending the very least amount, no matter the resulting quality. There's a reason why Canon's 28-300L costs so darn much- to make a max zoom like this produce decent images makers have to spend some money on them, and so we do too- a lot of money.

Some of these new digital only lenses like Sigma's 18-200 that aren't designed to cover so much of an image circle are probably what you need to be looking at if you insist on an all-in-one lens.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2005, 11:55 PM   #3
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

yea.. the 18-200 appears to be a good lens.. at least from the examples i have seen..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2005, 8:06 AM   #4
Senior Member
LBoy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661

Taken from my little black book/.....

Should I buy the Canon 28-200 or the Tamron 28-200 or the Sigma 28-300 (or some other lens with a big focal range)?

A perennial question on discussion groups. Sadly, such lenses tend to be fairly big and heavy, as consumer lenses go. And most importantly, the optical quality of these lenses leaves a little to be desired. It's very difficult to build optically sharp zoom lenses, particularly those with a really wide zoom range like these ones. The lenses are pretty slow, with small maximum apertures. They also tend to have a lot of distortion, which makes squares and rectangles in photos appear like they're bulging in or out slightly - bad for photos of buildings.

If you only take 4"x6" snapshots then these drawbacks are probably fine, but if you ever want to make enlargements beyond that you may find that your photos look disappointingly soft - not very sharply focussed. Since they're optically so slow you'll probably also find that any telephoto photos you take will be badly blurred unless you use a tripod or flash. Finally, using long telephoto lenses requires a certain degree of technique and experience since the focal lengths are so long. You can't easily handhold a slow 300mm lens, for example. Doing so, particularly without high-powered flash, is a surefire recipe for disappointingly blurry photos. And Sigma has regrettably a long history of older lenses turning out to be incompatible with later EOS cameras.

As a beginner you're probably best off getting one or two lenses of a more modest focal length range, no matter what nonsense the salesperson in your camera shop may say about you never needing to buy another lens again. In short, consumer-level 28-200 or 28-300 lenses always suffer from tremendous optical compromises; compromises which render them of limited value, especially at the long (200-300mm) end.

There are really only two lenses with a huge focal length range that are generally accepted as possessing decent optical quality - Canon's 35-350 3.5-5.6L and Canon's 28-300 3.5-5.6L IS. However both are gigantic and expensive lenses not intended for beginners.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2005, 1:10 PM   #5
Senior Member
PeterP's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,396

I'll have to agree with LBoy here, the "ultra zooms" expecially the inexpensive consumer ones then to be not very good at all.

I'll add one ultra zoom to LBoy's list that is not a Canon L :-)
The Sigma 50-500 ex (AKA the Bigma) is opticaly good, it is also long, big, heavy, and expensive. (and IMHO I'd prefer the Canon 100-400 F4 IS L as being more versitle, again a longer and quite expensive lens)

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.