Excellent price,
Versatile for travel photography

lens extends when hung round neck,
loose manual focus ring,
not particularly sharp,
AF hunts in low light (ie in churches for weddings)

I needed an all purpose lens for a 3mth trip round Europe and bought this one for it's versatility, was reasonably happy with the shots I took but they could have been alot sharper, but I guess for the money they were pretty good. Good for a beginner who is not sure what lens combos to get, with this one you'll soon learn what focal lengths you use the most, from there you can buy the appropriate zooms/primes.

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-200
Minolta 28-135

Lightweight, great quality, IF, very close miminum focus.

None to be noted yet....

Okay, first I have to say that I am leaving this same review under the title "Sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF". The reason for this is there seems to be some confusion on these lenses and I want anyone else to have a proper perspective.

Sigma's "old" 28-200 lens, as far as I am aware (could be wrong) was a 3.8-5.6. This lens did not have a very close miminum focus and was a good lens for it's intended purpose. Again, I say intended purpose because I find too many individuals commenting on a lens of this nature and comparing it's quality to either a prime lens or a 2.8 zoom costing well over 3x the price. So first we need to keep perspective when commenting on a lens. Understand its price and intended use, and then comment accordingly.

Now, I do not know anything about Sigma's "old" 28-200mm lens, however if you are looking at Sigma's newer 28-200mm IF Asp. DL Hyperzoom lens, this is what I can say. This lens is superb in quality and function. First, you have the ability to travel light and cover a range of 28mm(wide) to 200mm(tele) all without changing lenses. Second, in regards to quality, the lens is built well, AF is quick and accurate (most of which has to do with your camera, not the lens), and picture quality is fantastic. Now will you get more sharp pictures in a 2.8 200mm prime lens? Of course, but you will also pay a lot more and be limited in your range. However, this Sigma lens will give you outstanding pictures up to at least 8x10 or possibly 11x14. For most of us who are even looking at this lens, that is large enough. If you expect to make giant enlargements, then you're probably not looking at a lens in this price range anyway.

Also, this lens will focus as close as 19.7" throughout the ENTIRE ZOOM range! That is amazing. Many lenses will quote a 23"-27" minimum focus, but what they don't tell you is that is at 28mm. When you zoom their lenses to 200mm, you "close focus" goes out to a minimum of 72" (6 feet!). Not to mention the Sigma lens also incorporates an Internal Focus (IF) mechanism so the lens "length" does not change and the front barrel does not rotate. Comments have been made regarding the lens moving when pointed up or down. Well I can say this, considering this lens has an IF mechanism, I do not see how that is possible. What is meant by this is that most zooms telescope (get longer) when zooming. The Sigma does everything internally, so the size it is at 28mm is the same size it is at 200mm.

Lets also not forget this lens uses Aspherical glass for improved quality. All around this is a fantastic lens for the money. Anyone who is an intermediate on down will love this lens. It is unmatched in min. focus, quality, build, IF, etc, etc. Compare it to the Tamron 28-200 spec for spec and you will see what I mean.

Customer Service

Not needed yet....

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-200, Nikon lenses, Vivitar lenses, Canon lenses

Overall zoom range is nice -- When you need it, it's there. Operation is smooth and crisp. Manual focus is a snap.

Rectilinear distortion ("Pincushion") at all focal lengths. Focus sometimes causes image to jump vertically.

Great lens for anything that doesn't have straight lines. They will be bent. Macro pix of round things like flowers and people are really sharp. Good lens for an advanced beginner or taking pictures of Baby's first years...

Customer Service

I've heard they're good...

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-200 Super II Macro

I can highly recommend this lens! Great Price! I bought mine from NY mail order. Makes more sense to me to carry one lens instead of 2, (28-80 and 70-210). Looked at Nikons and Tokinas also, Sigma has a closer focusing distance.

n/a

All around this is a fantastic lens for the money. Anyone who is an intermediate on down will love this lens.
If you can’t go for the big prices of the Nikons, Canons etc., and if you can only carry ONE lens, carry this one!

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Nikon

Zoom range
Size
Light

Loose (extends whilst walking)
Lens quality (normal for such a zoom)
Build (goes with the price)
AF hunts in low light

It is a consumer lens, so bearing no relation with the pro-lenses out there. Build quality is OK, light weight, distortion is acceptable for amateur photography but not for the rest.
Basically it is a jack of all trades and a master of none, but for someone starting and wishing to carry 1 lens, this is it. 1 annoying feature though is the tendency for the lens to extent whilst walking.
All in all perfect for amateurs to get started. Have not tried the Tamron one (new version just out).

Similar Products Used:

None

Zoom Range and Macro, Price, Robust Construction

none

Lives on camera, for me is the range that I need to take a good pictures in all situations. For casual photos looks very sharp. Good return for the price paid. Is not a HSM but is very quick but at low light.

Customer Service

never used

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-80

Good 'All-around' lens
Compact, able to hand hold nicely
Sharp

A tad slow with focusing
f/3.5-5.6

I believe this is an excellent all-purpose lens. I have had incredible results with it, but you MUST be alert to your 'lighting' situations to get some good shots.

Customer Service

very good, quick to answer questions with, believe it or not, well thought out and good answers

Similar Products Used:

None

Massive,good zoom range, price, good sharpness

Not very smooth zooming through 80mm, sometimes zoomes out when hanging down.

Nice lens for everyday shooting. Makes camera image more seriouse thanks to robust construction. Zoom range is very good. Not very fast (5.6) at telephoto, but reasonable. Little bit unsharp at 200, distortion and vignetting at 28mm. Makes very good pictures at 33-180mm and f=8-11. Much better than set lens 28-90 from Canon. Filter diameter of 72mm makes me sometimes unhappy - they are expensive.

Customer Service

Not used yet.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-90 DC

- Nice price
- Zoom range
- Including lens hood
- Sharp from 35mm to 135mm
- ASPherical lens
- Internal focusing (good work with polarising filters)

- Weight
- Not sharp at 28 mm and 200 mm
- Small DOF
- In vertical position lens move out
- Complicated lens constructios

The lens is good for beginners, who want lens with big zoom range. Enlarged photos isn´t sharp and have small DOF. Next time i go to max 2,5× zoom, while best are prime lenses.

Customer Service

no need

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 28mm F1.8 ASP II
Sigma 24-70 F3.5-5.6

Surprisingly little distortion at the wide end. Really delivers quite good performance.

Good and useful close-focusing throughout its zoom range.

Nine-blade diaphragm makes for quite nice out-of-focus highlights ("bokeh").

Zoom creep? Call it Zoom run! Just five minutes of walking around with this lens slung over your shoulder will have it at vulnerable full-extension.

I was prepared to not like this lens. But, I wanted something all-inclusive for the usual 4x6" happy snaps of the family. Measured by that standard, this lens far exceeds expectations, delivering results that look good up to about 8x12", and you could do even better if your technique is right on.

There is surprisingly little distortion at the wide end (less, for instance, than with the cheap Nikon 28-80 zooms), although at the long end enough pincushion creeps in to be noticeable. That is a phenomenal performance for a long-ratio zoom.

Zoom creep is prevalent, so you have to be careful when you're walking around with the camera slung from a shoulder; the zoom lock on the new Tamron is a nice touch. Compared to the equivalent close-focusing Tamron 28-200 Macro II , the Sigma offers one specification that was the clincher for me: a nine-blade diaphragm as opposed to the seven-blade diaphragm on the Tamron. Generally, more blades mean a rounder aperture and smoother bokeh. Now, since I have not used the Tamron, I can't comment on its out-of-focus highlights; I can say that the Sigma offers very smooth highlights and is a surprisingly nice portrait lens at 85-135mm. It is also surprisingly sharp at 200mm, provided you keep the shutter speed up above 1/250 and brace yourself well (stopping down even a half-stop helps lot too).

Flare is surprisingly well-damped.

The lens shade offers decent coverage, and is more-robust than my Nikon scalloped lens hoods, so that's saying something. In fact, in general the lens is decently built, with smooth controls and a good finish. I've used the word "surprisingly" now three or four times in this review, and that's about what the lens is. Surprisingly good.

For some reason, more people have rated this lens here than in its proper place (and others, like me, have put our reviews in both places so they can be found). There is, as of this writing (June 2001) no such thing as a "Sigma 28-200 3.5-5.6 DL Aspherical HSM." The current Sigma product does NOT have HSM (which is what Sigma calls their internal motor). I think someone got confused setting up the fields, and mistook "Hyperzoom" for "HSM." So, take a look at the ratings for the "Hyperzoom" lens too - it's the same one.

It's cheaper than its closest competitor from Tamron, so I've given it five stars for value. I've downrated it a touch because of the zoom creep. Handling problems can sometimes be every bit as detrimental to your experience with a lens, than optical or mechanical problems.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Kiron 28-210 (sharp and heavy). Oh, and an awful Vivitar 28-200. Yuck!

I suppose one could say that the very sharp and well-regarded Nikon 24-120 is in this class of product (wide zoom range, fairly slow), and frankly I'd say that the Sigma has a touch less distortion.