frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gotta agree with you there. I have one Sigma, an older 80's vintage APO >3.5-4.5 50-200 zoom. It takes very nice pictures. Sharp, nice (but not the >best) bokeh - optically very competent. Nice all metal barrel. But the >aperture ring is plastic. Very flimsy plastic, such that one can easily deform >it by using quite ordinary pressure on it while adjusting the aperture. One >has to use a ~very~ light touch on it, because it deforms to the extent that it >can be difficult to turn. > >This, on what would have been a fairly expensive lens in its time. Luckily I >got it on eBay for a song, but it really takes much of the pleasure out of >using it, and makes me wonder how long it's going to last... I guess >everything I've read about that famous "Sigma build quality" is true. Sigma mist have a weird history. I've had a couple of their old, manual focus primes that were really solidly built: All metal construction, good focusing feel. Very nice indeed. When they went to autofocus it seemed they really slipped for a while. The 18-35 zoom I had took nice enought photos (especially for the price) but felt like it was made of plastic and cardboard. *Cheap* plastic and cardboard, at that! The recent 28-135 zoom is much better. Feels like an above-average quality consumer grade zoom. The EX series 300/2.8 is just top notch in terms of construction and image quality. Of course, it should be for the price. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photorgaphy and writing
