- Browse Reviews:
Submitted by Martin a Intermediate
Date Reviewed: February 6, 2017
Strengths: works ok on a full frame if you know it's limits
Weaknesses: open soft at tele and soft in the corners at wide angle
I bought my lens in a very good condition for just 40 bugs at ebay - in a mint condition. First tries on a dull day were terrible so I didn't mind it for a while. Then I did some comparison with my other lenses on my full frame Nikon D700. I tested it against my Nikkor 35-105D and my 50mm prime.
My prime at 50mm setting was far better - no matter what setting but at f 8 I was also happy with this Sigma.
Then I tried it against my Nikkor and after that test I sold my Nikkor because it wasn't able to hold up with this Sigma.
I'm not saying that this is the perfect lens, but I like the idea of having it for those cases I can't change my lenses quickly. I will always prefer my Nikkor primes but this Sigma has now also it's place in the bag.
Price Paid: $40.00
Purchased At: Germany
Type of photography: Outdoor
Submitted by Sagar S Gosavi a Intermediate
Date Reviewed: September 2, 2006
Strengths: good range covered
close focusing .
Weaknesses: low light performance .
Sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6 Asp IF ... thereare lots of varient of sigma28-200 ..
I read the above reviews ..but most of the people got confuse between these varients ..
Let me clear this ,Sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6 Asp IF lens is amazing . results are very sharp from 28mm to100mm. then after its lil softer but again very lil.
It is worth buying this lens and the best thing is u'll get this lens for jus 275$
Note : People please don't get confused and don't confuse others :)
Duration Product Used: 2-5 years
Price Paid: $275.00
Purchased At: JJ mehta India
Type of photography: Outdoor
Submitted by prole a Casual
Date Reviewed: February 19, 2005
Strengths: It's all in one and it's cheap, no potentially image crippling quality issues.
Weaknesses: I've seen better AF on a compact camera cheaper than this lens, softy softy approach to images won't appeal.
All prices are Pounds not Dollars, Britain fended off the Euro, we aren't going to give in to American currency.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen was a lesson indeed. Not a lesson in the sense that you shouldn't buy Sigma or not buy this lens, no. The lesson was simple - if you normally spend £400 on a lens and then you go for a £150 one, you're going to realise just how good those ones you had were.
It's clear I've been spoiling myself.
This is not a bad lens. It's a mediocre, middle of the road, long zoom lens for people on a budget who decide they want one lens they can use for everything, as money is an issue.
It's important to remember that most of the time, lenses with a zoom of more than 3x aren't going to be able to match the quality of their more modest range cousins - unless you're willing to spend a packet.
28-200 is about 7x. It's £150. Any quality fanatics aren't going to even entertain this lens, and it produces fairly soft images. Let us then focus on useability and performance, rather than pure quality.
AF is precarious. In low light it's a... oh, no profanity. Ah. Also, focusing at 200mm is equally dastardly. If you want a lens where you don't have to resort to manual focus on occasion this is not the lens for you. It will not suffice for wedding, sport or wildlife photography, and quite frankly if I was paying you to photograph my wedding, I'd hope you would use better kit, you cheapskate.
If you've tried this in the shop and found the zoom ring to be stiff, don't worry it will free up and become a fairy nice action.
I'm using it on a digital camera and I've not found any noticable chromatic abberation, just remember that the 28-200 range is not that on a digital camera - on mine it becomes 42-300 which means it looses the convenience of being a lens that stays on your camera most of the time as the wide angle has vanished.
It's a hunky-dory lens for the price, but you may end up wishing you paid more, and if you're on a budget and want a single lens to cover wide angle and telephoto just remember it looses that appeal on a digital camera. I'm reasonably happy with it, because I knew what I was paying and what you get at that price range.
You get what you pay for in this business and if you're a beginner there's no point in shelling out for all the pro goodies because you have a job to do too. A good photographer will be able to coax quite a bit out of this lens, I should say.
Duration Product Used: 0-1 years
Price Paid: $150.00
Purchased At: Jacobs digital
Similar Products Used: No lenses that cover this range.
Type of photography: Other
Submitted by Daniel a Intermediate
Date Reviewed: April 7, 2003
Strengths: Decent images for price
Good focal length coverage
Convenient and small
Consumer level glass
I bought this lens to go traveling with only one lens. It's compact and covers a pretty wide series of focal lengths. I caught some pretty decent images with it walking around the city. It is not as clean as my other consumer lenses (Canon 75-300 IS and Sigma 28-105 f2.8), but for what it is, it does a pretty nice job.
But there's a rub: at 28mm, the lens gets vignetting with a UV filter attached. It's not present on every image, but on any image where the light is distant to but above the lens. When you attach a polarizer, though, the vignetting becomes quite pronounced (this is with a standard polarizer, not a "wide-angle" polarizer). If you zoom to 35mm, the effect disappears.
So be forewarned, this is a reasonable consumer zoom that covers a broad range of focal lengths and produces decent images for the money, but if you use your polarizer alot at 28mm you might not find this lens is for you.
Of note, the Tamron 28-300 XR does not have vignetting at 28mm with the UV filter, and has very mild vignetting at 28mm with the UV AND polarizer attached. I cannot speak about the 28-200 Tamron because I haven't shot any film on it; however, when I was at the camera store, I tried the lens with the UV and the polarizer and could not see any vignetting. The Tamron 28-200 might be the best lens of this class if you intend to shoot alot at 28mm with the polarizer filter.
Recommendation for shopping: I would load a roll of film in the camera, go to the shop, have them bring out each of the three lenses as well as a UV and polarizer filter. Put each lens on with whatever filter combination you plan to use, and snap a few shots. Then run over to the 1-hour processing place and have them develop your film. In an hour, you will know which lens to buy.
Duration Product Used: 2-5 years
Price Paid: $219.00
Purchased At: B&H
Similar Products Used: Tamron 28-300 XR
Canon 75-300 IS
Sigma 28-105 f/2.8
Submitted by erikm a Intermediate from Gaylord, MI, USA
Date Reviewed: January 12, 2002
Weaknesses: Not a sharp lens.
Flare and ghosting.
72mm filter size...some filters cost more than the lens!
Manual focus problems with the Maxxum 7
I'm not one to slam a "consumer" lens and compare it to all the pro glass out there but this lens didn't really make me happy. It's fairly heavy considering the cheap plastic barrel construction. I experienced a lot of flare and ghosting and it ruined many irreplacable pictures. I know that flare and other light related issues are usually the users fault but this lens would somehow go out of it's way to find light sources and kill the photo. The "perfect hood" didn't do much to help the problem because I always used it. The image sharpness was lacking as well. I ended up selling it for a Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 and a 80-200mm APO f2.8. Ofcourse these lenses set me back more than a few hundred bucks but I'm taking photography more seriously too. It's a decent snapshot lens while traveling due to it's size and focal range.
Duration Product Used: 6-10 years
Price Paid: $159.00
Purchased At: eBay
Similar Products Used: Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6 - f2.8
Tokina AT-X Pro 80-200mm f2.8 APO
Minolta Maxxum 200mm f 2.8 APO
Type of photography: Sports
Check out our holiday gift suggestions for these categories!
See All Holiday Gift Guide coverage - Click Here »