SIGMA LENS 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 DL Aspherical Hyperzoom Macro SLR Camera Lens

by Sigma

Product Details

• Item Weight: 1.8 pounds
• Shipping Weight: 2 pounds
• Shipping: Currently, item can be shipped only within the U.S.
• ASIN: B00007AJ92
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Date first available at Amazon.com: October 22, 2002

Product Description

For CANON SLR Camera / Accepts 72mm Size Filters / Focuses from 19.7" to Infinity / AutoFocus Compatible

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Versatile all-in-one lens with good sharpness., July 24, 2003

By 

Denzil Thakur (Dubai, UAE) - See all my reviews

This is aspherical zoom lens is a 2 in 1 zoom lens taking care of 28-70mm and 70-210mm zoom lens so no more lens changing hassles.

The results from this lens has come out very well and the crispness, clarity, exposure and sharpness are quite satisfying.

It's quite compact and lightweight but not as light as the Tamron's 28-200mm. But then I guess weight does add sturdiness and strength to a product.

It's got a very good aperture range of 3.5-5.6 for such a huge focal range. The aspherical design has added to it's compactness. Due to the non-rotating filter mount, using of polarizers has become easier.

On the downside the depth of field is the only casualty in the mid to tele range compared to smaller range zooms.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Good lens, lacks contrast at 200mm, March 5, 2005

By 

R. Palmer (North of Boston) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: SIGMA LENS 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 DL Aspherical Hyperzoom Macro SLR Camera Lens (Electronics)

I bought this lens for a trip to Ireland, I wanted to travel light with only one body and one lens.

It's a very good all purpose zoom range and suited my objective very well.

The lens was sharp, but seemed to lack contrast at the very upper end of the zoom range. When zoomed all the way in, the pictures looked a little flat and lacked contrast but it was nothing that couldn't be tuned up in Photoshop. It was fine from 28-135 or so.

I was afraid of their 28-300 zoom. That seemed like too much of a range and I was more concerned about that lens being less sharp and less contrasty at the upper focal length than this one... but if I had it all to do over again, I'd prbably go for that 28-300 lens instead of this 28-200 .

While I might expect the 28-300 to be softer at 300mm, it might be better at 200mm than the 28-200 so you'd have everything the 28-200 gives you plus an extra 100mm.

The 28-300 is also a little heavier and more expensive, so that should be a consideration.

All in all it was a very good bargain. It wasn't as crisp as I'd expect a Nikon or Canon lens, but it wasn't a Nikon or Canon lens price.