Tim Randles wrote:
> I'm gunning to add 2 more lenses to my arsenal.. so I am comparing the
> following..
>
> E*AY Item number: 140022555807
> Sigma AF 55-200mm F4-5.6
>
> compared to
>
> http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_50mm28.asp
>
> about the only difference I sort of understand is the F:4 on the sigma and
> the F:2.8
> on the Zuiko.. and I still dont really understand that, except it has to do
> with the amount of light it will let in.
>
> Is there any other differences ( aside from price) that I should consider
> here..
> {I gotta tell you though, I had the Zuiko on my e-500 yesterday at the shop
> and I got a rush of raw testosterone holding it in my hand..(LOL)}
>
I asked this question last week or so...
While I haven't handled either one, the general concensus is that the
Sigma lens is too light and feels plasticky - almost fragile, while the
ZD lens feels more solidly-built. Also, from a couple of guys who have
used both, the ZD performs much better optically.
--
Paul Braun
Valparaiso, IN
"There's a fine line between stupid, and clever." - David St. Hubbins
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon
"The Fountain of Youth is a state of mind." - The Ides of March
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|