Reviews and Problems with Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 DG MACRO
Showing 1-10 of 13
I use this lens a lot!
N Doxey, Amazon
1 January 2010
Summary: I bought this lens because it was inexpensive. I have a Sony DT 18-200mm lens but wanted another 18 or 28-200mm lens since I have two camera bodies. I really like this zoom focal length since I shoot mostly outdoors and do not want to carry another lens with me. I am pleased with this Sigma lens. I like it better than the Sony lens. I like the build quality, it's small size and weight, and it's performance.
Summary: This is a great lens for beginner to intermediate. Used for many trips and vacations and was always pleased with the results - allows you to travel with only one lens, reducing luggage clutter. [...
Summary: I've not had much time to use this lens, but so far, it has performed very well. Seems to be a little sticky when zooming, but really doesn't interfer with lens operation. I consider it to be an excellent value considering its price vs performance. If I were a professional, I may be more critical, but as of right now, I'm very satisfied.
Summary: This lens takes great pictures and I got it for under $100. However, when zooming, the lens "sticks" in the 100mm range. Since I photo mostly baseball with the lens fully extended, it doesn't bother me all that much. However, if I were constantly zooming in and out it would probably bother me more than it does. I am sure this is an anomaly and I was just too lazy to return the lens.
Summary: I was very impressed with the quality of the shots from this lens. For this price it's hard to get a metal mount lens. Check DP reviews for a better picture, but it's quite sharp at mid level and doesn't fall off too bad towards the end. Definately a good buy.
Summary: I received this lens with my Canon Digital Rebel Ti from a friend. Its great for traveling, as it takes you from a good wide-angle to a respectable zoom. A word of warning, though: beyond 60mm or so this lens isn't very effective indoors if you are running at ISO 100 unless you are in an extremely well-lit room or have a nice off-camera flash. The variable aperture just doesn't allow you to shoot in low-light situations.
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DG Macro review by eyrieowl
21 August 2007
Summary: This was my first lens for my Nikon d50. Which was my first true digital camera (other than 3mp point-and-shoot i'd gotten with my printer). prior to that, i'd been shooting on a venerable Canon AE-1. I had a cheapie 28-210 zoom on that body (no, I didn't know much about lenses), so when i moved into digital, i went for the same range. this lens...was a decent starter lens to begin to learn digital photography. but i am not sure it'll be going back on my camera again.
Summary: Great lens. Its metal body feels solid, unlike the ones the come with my camera which is made of plastic & feels like a toy. The pictures I took was clearer than the sony lens. The drawback is that it's on the heavy side & the auto focus mechanism is a little slower the the plastic one. All in all, you not only get your money's worth but you get more for your money.
Summary: I'm not sure why, but this lens is incredibly dark. I need to have major amounts of light to use it; the built in flash is not sufficient to light a nearby subject. I will very likely retire this lens in favor of one i can actually use. So why not 1 star? I'm not sure if for some reason i'm missing something obvious... usually sigma rocks.