sigma lenses for FD

I've seen a couple of sigma lenses for sale which I'd be interested to hear

people's opinion of - they're both sigma zooms, the first 21-35/3.5-4 (with

fixed hood) and the second a 28-70/2.8. I don't know any other details as I've

just seen them listed on a website, but from what i've read the 21-35 has a good

reputation. Does anyone have any experience with either of them?

I would just get FD lenses, I just picked up FD 28mm f2.8, 35-70mm f2.8-3.5 (Canon engineers consider this lens one of the finest zoom lenses they have ever made.), and an 80-200mm f4 for under $200.

 

I don't know about the Sigma lenses.

 

Rick

It has been my experiance that Sigma lenses other then the 600mm f8.0 Mirror lens are not anywhere near Canon Lens quality. And for the most part not up to Vivitar Series 1 lenses or Tokina AT-X lenses I have never owned a Tamron but I understand some of their offering are outstanding as well.

 

Sigma not so much good heard about them.

This website contains information about third party lenses:

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/

 

You may find it useful.

I have a canon 35-105/3.5 which is excellent, but big and heavy, and i would prefer more leeway at the wide end than this allows; way back when, I had a cheap Centon 28-70 which wasn't that hot, but the range was ideal for a compact, travel lens. I don't care much for variable-aperture zooms as i find that, with the way i work out exposure, it often messes it up (noticeably for high contrast slide film like sensia, which i use a lot).

 

i know some sigma lenses get a bad rap, but from my experience it's largely based on very old lenses (possibly including these two, but possibly not, which is why i ask). I did already try checking the Cult 3rd Party lens page, but it doesn't give much info for these two.

Then pickup a Canon 28-85 nFD or if you want a really stunning little walk around lens the Tokina 28-70mm f3.5/4.5 SD is the ticket. Would make anything from Sigma look like a coke bottle

Mark, the canon 28-85 is f4 and really too slow for my taste over that range; the tokina is variable aperture which i'm not too keen on as i mentioned, plus i've not actually come across one! the sigma 28-70/2.8 appeals because it's fast and constant aperture

I have experience with both versions of the Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4.2 lens.

 

The early version is a two touch zoom with 67mm filter threads and dates from the eighties. I borrowed that lens from a friend when I had a Minolta MD outfit. That version has mediocre performance and I would avoid the lens. In 1992 Sigma offered an auto-focus version and changed the manual focus version to the same optical formula. That manual focus version is a one-touch zoom with 77mm filter threads. That lens has excellent optics and is the one I have personally owned and shot many frames with.

 

If it means anything to you, www.photodo.com rates the AF Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4.2 a point higher than Nikon's 20-35 f/2.8 ED and Canon's EF 20-35 f/2.8L. That's a high level of performance for $100 or so for the same lens in manual focus. The lens also makes a nice companion to the Tokina AT-X 80-200 f/2.8 SD as they will both use 77mm filter threads. Those two lenses along with the mechanical F-1, a 77mm polarizer and 77mm 81A warming filter will give a pretty capable travel kit.

 

I don't have any experience with the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8.

Thanks for the info Gregory - I think the one I've seen may be the early version, as from the image on the site where I saw it, it appears to be a two-touch design. I'd kind of decided that I was going to forget the 21-35 anyway, but thanks for helping me confirm that.<div></div>

By the way, here's a pic of the 28-70/2.8 lens, in case it jogs anyone's memory :)<div></div>

Sigma's construction quality has always been suspect. Stay with Canon and the better Tokinas, and, in particular, the Tamron SP lenses. The SP Tamrons are outstanding, both optically and mechanically. The 90mm macro is as good as it gets. The 80-200 SP-LD f:2.8 zoom is amazing. I've never seen a zoom with so little distortion. I was a fool to sell it for the Canon, which while isn't too bad, has noticeable distortion where the Tamron had none I could see. And the 500 mirror is not only very good for photography, if you can find one of the optical viewers, makes a terrific spotting scope.

For what its worth, I have a Sigma mini-wide II 28mm f/2.8 my brother gave me, and I think it does an excellent job. I know this is a prime. I have not compared this to a Canon or other, but I will keep it.