Topic: in the market for a SLR...

[Frank in JC]

...one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but...

Of the 3rd party manufacturers I've been most pleased with Tokina but never owned a Sigma.

$400 for the Sigma versus $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.  Hmmmmm...  The obvious question is, "how does it compare optically," which I suspect is probably good, but just as important, how is the build quality and mechanical performance?  Sigma doesn't have a reputation for high quality construction, but it's not like they're pulling a fast one; they're just trying sell lenses at affordable prices.

[Nicola Fankhauser]

hi

when reading the post topic, I wondered why you'd want to discuss buying cars here... however, rest assured, once you're hooked up to the dslr-stuff, it'll burn holes into your pockets like almost nothing else.

well, taping maybe being the exception.

regards
nicola

ps: proud owner of a canon 5d, with too many glass to carry around at once...

[dgodwin]

...one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but...

Of the 3rd party manufacturers I've been most pleased with Tokina but never owned a Sigma.

$400 for the Sigma versus $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.  Hmmmmm...  The obvious question is, "how does it compare optically," which I suspect is probably good, but just as important, how is the build quality and mechanical performance?  Sigma doesn't have a reputation for high quality construction, but it's not like they're pulling a fast one; they're just trying sell lenses at affordable prices.

I have all Sigma brand lenses.  Just buy the better quality, EX line lenses and I think you'll be happy with them. 

[phanophish]

...one more fluff to Sigma's 18-50/2.8

Sorry to hijack the thread, but...

Of the 3rd party manufacturers I've been most pleased with Tokina but never owned a Sigma.

$400 for the Sigma versus $1,200 for Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8.  Hmmmmm...  The obvious question is, "how does it compare optically," which I suspect is probably good, but just as important, how is the build quality and mechanical performance?  Sigma doesn't have a reputation for high quality construction, but it's not like they're pulling a fast one; they're just trying sell lenses at affordable prices.

I have a few Sigma Lenses and have to say optically I've been pretty happy. I owned a Sigma 70-200/2.8 before I upgraded to the Nikon and it was a nice lens, and I think build quality was quite good.  It was not quite as nice as the Nikon and of course did not have VR.  I owned a Tokina 24-70/2.8 that I sold when I upgraded to the Sigma 18-50 that I have now.As was mentioned stick with the EX series Sigmas, they are much higher build quality than the lower end lenses Sigma makes.  I really liked the Tokina, but actually think the Sigma is a slightly better lens.  It is sharper and the build quality is every bit as good.  Granted the Nikon pro lenses are tanks, but I saved nearly $800 over the Nikon by buying the Sigma.  All that said, I'll probably upgrade to the Nikon some day, but it may be a while.