Hi, I am about to buy a D30 and have limited funds! I allready own a Sigma 28-105 f3.5-5.6(old one) (45-168 on D30) and a Canon 75-300 II f4-5.6 (also old) I want to get a wide zoom probably a Sigma 15-30 which has been well received, and I'll be getting a 50mm f1.8 (=80 f1.8 on D30) which is great value. But I fancy something that I would leave on most of the time and the prospect of a 28-200 (or even 300) sound great. Does anyone have any experience of the quality of either the Canon or Sigma lenses in this area? And what should I do with my current glass? Keep them or bin them?

-- Neil Buchan-Grant (nbg@tiffanybadges.co.uk), December 07, 2001

Answers

Here's today's comment from Photo.net about the Canon 28-200:

"A friend of mine bought this with his Elan-7. It seems a little better than the Tamron/Sigma/Tokina 28-x00 superzooms, but on the whole it's a crap lens which I would avoid. The 28-105 or 28-135 wallops this one.

-- Vincent J M, December 08, 2001; 12:47 A.M. Eastern"

That's pretty much the prevailing sentiment about all 28-200/300's. The quality won't be any better than the cheap 28-105 you have now and the extra length isn't worth upgrading for since this is the end of the zoom that is usually the worst, optically. Listed in order of price, the best Canon mid-range zooms are: 28-105, 24-85, 28-135 and 28-70L.

I have the Sigma 17-35 & I like it. For the D30, I'd go for the 15- 30 too.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), December 08, 2001.

Tnanks for these comments, I guess what I'm really getting at is whether or not the sigma 28-105 or the 28-2/300's will produce results that I can't improve sufficiently in Photoshop, i.e. I have been looking at lots of examples of prosumer digicams for months now and have decided to go for a D30 SLR, so wouldn't these sigmas still be way better than prosumer lenses?

I guess I need to get along to a D30 dealer with my flashcard and lens to check out the results for myself. Thanks all the same

-- Neil Buchan-Grant (nbg@tiffanybadges.co.uk), December 08, 2001.

If you MUST have a superzoom, then get the Canon 35-350L. Of course, you pays your money, you takes your choice....

Stick with Canon lenses. Don't try to use photoshop as a substitute for decent glass. Go for a Canon 28-105, or 24-85 or 28-135 IS, and stick with the 75-300 for now.the 24-85 may avoid the need to buy a shorter lens, or else you could get the 28-105/135 with a 20-35 USM as well.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), December 08, 2001.

"...so wouldn't these sigmas still be way better than prosumer lenses?"

Probably not. These Sigmas (28-105 and 28-200/300) aren't very good and the little digicams have pretty good zooms as far as sharpness is concerend. They do distort quite a bit but that can be straightened out with a little image tweaking. Their major limitation to me is that you're stuck with only one lens & every lens has it's compromises. Sometimes I want to compromise for speed and sometime I want to compromise for length, but I want to be able to choose & change my mind from time to time. Point & shoot digicams are too limited for that. I have use of a Canon G1. Nice camera, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with it all the time.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), December 08, 2001.

On the subject of Digicam lenses...a friend of mine has a Nikon Coolpix 700 (fixed-focal length lens), and I've been VERY impressed with the pictures from it. They're sharp, well detailed, good colour rendition... I was somewhat envious to be honest.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), December 08, 2001.

Well, today I went into town,flashcard in hand and tried a D30 with a bunch of different lenses. I tried: Canon 50 f1.8 Sigma 28-200 Sigma 28-300 Sigma 28-105 (my own) Canon 75-300 (my own)

I've been examining the results and here's my conclusions: On the face of it the 50 1.8 pictures look shit hot compared to all the others prior to any adjustments. But even these look much better after they have had their levels done and gone through Miranda's edge pro action.

I took about 10-15 pictures (in highest JPG) with each lens. The Sigma 28-300 was dificult to focus and the pics looked 'iffy' The 28 - 200 on the other hand was razor sharp (as sharp as the 50 1.8) but not as contrasty. These pictures looked pretty good. My 28-105 was crap, soft and slow to focus. My Canon 75-300 had to be used at 1600 iso because of low light but it looked OK and certainly worth keeping.

So after running the best through PS you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between either lens! By the time its been printed out on my Canon s800 it would be impossible to tell which lens took which picture. The printer, as good as it is cannot resolve all of the detail I see on the screen and the printer makes more noise that the cmos chip!

Im still not sure what I'll go for though but I wont be put off the Sigma 28- 200 through a fear of quality though. (It is a pretty big lens though) Cheers

-- Neil Buchan-Grant (nbg@tiffanybadges.co.uk), December 08, 2001.

Neil, that's what I would do: Buy the D30 in combination with the Canon 24-85USM. This lens works very well with the D30 (=38-136) as a general proposal lens. Sell your Sigma 28-105. Keep the Canon 75-300 until you have enough money to replace it for the Canon 4/70-200L. And put the Sigma 15-30 on your Xmas wish list! I wouldn't buy the Sigma 28-200 because of it's "green" pictures (which are easier to correct in Photoshop than on slides ;-)) and it's distortion.

-- Martin (uboot67@yahoo.com), December 11, 2001.