Amateur Photographer & What Digital Camera: Superzooms re-visted.

Hi All

A while a go I posted a topic about superzooms in the hope of gaining some valuable advice & information prior to splashing the cash.

After a lot of thought & research I went out and bought the Sigma 28-300 Dg lens, I've had it for about a month now & don't really know what to make of it, or if in fact I made a mistake by buying it.

On the plus side, it definetly looks the part (a lens on viagra)& although not wide angle at only 28, i find it suits my style (any wider and i just use the kit lens), i love the lens hood (it's a much more re-assuring fit than the one on my tamron 55-200), and apart from a slightly stiff zoom action, probably as a result of being new it handles well, photographic qaulity i would say is on par with the kit lens from 28 up until the 200 mark.

On the downside, above 200 i find the qaulity takes a huge drop with major jaggies/ghosting & as a result most images in that range are binned, & yesterday during a pre-season match I found that it's ideal as a travel lens but not as a fast action lens, & I did'nt think the shots i took with it were as good as those taken with a Tamron 55-200, despite it be a hot sunny afternoon & using the lens up to 200mm.

I'm trying to keep my lenses to a minimum, for several reasons; I had & love bridge cameras & the one lens flexibility that is there biggest asset, cost, & because I am paranoid over dust (although this is improving).

I currently have; the 18-70 kit lens, a 50mm f/1.7 prime, tamron 55-200 & the sigma 28-300.

Had the sigma been better at fast action, the tammy would have gone.

I'm not really into macro & feel that the kit lens covers my wide angle requirements, & the prime is great for protraits, low light work & landscapes, I'd really like to sort out a travel lens & a sports lens, I'd like to know if the sigma 28-200 is better than either the 28-300 or 18-200, and if the beercan/big beercan would satisfy my sporting needs ?.

Sadly mags & reviews don't seem to put all superzooms in one comparison, which i find strange becuase surely anyone looking for a superzoom would like to know how an 18-200/250 compares to a 28-200/300 etc.

I like the look of the 24-135 lenses but feel the tele end is'nt that long, the tammy 18-250 is good but pricey.

Dyxum has a lot of "minolta" user reviews, but newer superzoom reviews seem to be a scarce to say the least.

Any ideas please & is there a way of elementing out jaggies/ghosting ?. (I haven't tried raw @ that range yet).

Subscribe now »