>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:46:38 -0800
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Sigma lenses
>
>
>I know there is an assumption among some members that any lens that is
>primarily made of plastic and inexpensive must be junk. Just came up
>again about the multi-brand 19-35/3.5-4.5. I offer the following thoughts:
>
>I have heard many disparaging remarks here about the ex-APS lens design
>sold with the D300. I've read all the reviews and the reviewers have all
>found it to be optically quite good.
Agreed. I have yet to read a negative review from any publication,
either print media or web media, that did not say it was surprisingly
good for what it was, a $100 "kit lens". I too have read
disparagement of it here, presumably from listmembers who have not
actually used the lens. No one ever said it was an "L". As for
plastic bodied lenses, my C*n*n 28-135 IS is an excellent lens; I
actually returned a new 28-70L/2.8 because I felt the 28-135 was *so
close* in performance, the L wasn't worth the extra $800.
Rest assured C*n*n is laughing all the way to the bank with the 300D
and the kit lens.
-Stephen.
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|