Anyone ever used this lens. Super cheap. $165.00 on Amazon. Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 Compact Hyper Zoom Aspherical Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras. I suspect it is not auto-focus. Wonder why it is so cheap?
jsenear wrote:
Anyone ever used this lens. Super cheap. $165.00 on Amazon. Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 Compact Hyper Zoom Aspherical Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras. I suspect it is not auto-focus. Wonder why it is so cheap?
Check Fred Miranda dot com.
Lot's of reviews.
Just read a Shutterbug review on this lens. It was quite good. Had no idea I could buy an all around zoom for my D-50 at that price. Think I will be getting one next Social Security day.
Look at the Cost of a Nikon 18-200 VR lens. 28-200 Sigma for $165.00. Hard to believe.
jsenear wrote:
Just read a Shutterbug review on this lens. It was quite good. Had no idea I could buy an all around zoom for my D-50 at that price. Think I will be getting one next Social Security day.
this is why:
Plastic mount, no af and prone to flare.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=111
rpavich. The site you sent me to was a review on a Nikon lens. I read down and found this. "I bought this lens to try out, after 3 weeks and shot over 500 shots, i sold it, it just a cheaper version Nikon made, i wasnt so thrilled with it. The sharpness is average, nothing to talk about. Soft at both ends.
I replaced it with Sigma 28-200mm a much better choice , Sigma is a better lens in overall quality and performance."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latter is the lens I'm looking at. It even has a metal mount.
jsenear wrote:
rpavich. The site you sent me to was a review on a Nikon lens. I read down and found this. "I bought this lens to try out, after 3 weeks and shot over 500 shots, i sold it, it just a cheaper version Nikon made, i wasnt so thrilled with it. The sharpness is average, nothing to talk about. Soft at both ends.
I replaced it with Sigma 28-200mm a much better choice , Sigma is a better lens in overall quality and performance."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The latter is the lens I'm looking at. It even has a metal mount.
rpavich. The site you sent me to was a review on a... (
show quote)
Well...I'd look further before plunking down my cash.
I'm not saying stay away...just be cautious.
Cheap lenses are cheap for a reason. Very few exceptions exist such as a nifty fifty.
The lens you are looking at has been discontinued by Sigma and probably been replaced with an AF HSM version. Have been using Sigma lenses for years (film and digital) with no complaints. Also, the description on the Sigma site says that is Macro capable.:-)
dlwhawaii wrote:
The lens you are looking at has been discontinued by Sigma and probably been replaced with an AF HSM version. Have been using Sigma lenses for years (film and digital) with no complaints. Also, the description on the Sigma site says that is Macro capable.:-)
Sigma labels 1:3 as 'macro'. It's not true 1:1 macro.
Nice closeup, though.
saycheese
Loc: By the Big Lake in West Michigan
Look at other prices for lenses at amazon.Some are 200 dollars+ cheaper than other places. Because amazon sells in volume.
I have also been using Sigma for years. They are not bad. Had a couple of PM's from another site that raved about this lens. $170.00 walk around lens. By Sigma. How can you go wrong. Especially with Amazon's return policy. I am buying one when my Social Sec. comes through next month. Wish there was someone on this site that owned one. Seems like it should be a common lens. Reminder: We are talking about a 28-200 new zoom lens from Sigma.
While I don't exactly have the same lens in which you're interested, I have been using my Sigma 18-200mm zoom, which is the newer version, for well over a year now. Since I have been using this lens, I no longer use my sigma 10-20mm, 20-40mm, or 24-70mm. It's a great walking around lens and I rarely use the lower end since I also carry a 15mm for the wide angle shots. You should enjoy the 28-200mm zoom as a walking around lens and general all purpose lens.:-)
I do have that lens, it is really good. I bought it for my daughter as a throwaway walkaround lens. It is perfectly fine, has enough wide and long, works great. She prefers my lenses, but I don't mind using hers when she's busy with mine. It isn't too slow, isn't too short.
Good luck
Thanks for the reply guys and girls. Now I'm going to buy it for sure. I have a 18-55 and 55-200. Tired of switching around when I'm out walking. Nikon's 18-200 VR is out of my price range at this time.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.