Sigma 28-200mm lens

[JMC38]

As I stated earlier on in my initial, and only post, I bought the Sigma 28-200mm Compact Hyperzoom Aspherical Macro lens for my new Digital Rebel camera.

I thought I was getting the DL model but it came as the Compact. A call to Sigma and I found that the Compact is lighter but does the same thing with the same quality. ???

Initially I wanted the new Canon 28-200mm USM lens but...

Well, I've taken about 200 photos with this lens, inside and out, and I must say, in my own inexperienced way, I'm not too impressed with this lens so far.

It's advertised as being "macro" but I can't seem to get what I call good macro shots with it. Any suggestions?

The weather here [NJ] has been rain and or overcast. Yesterday I took outdoor photos and each had a blue tint to them. This was for the most part eliminated in PS ver. 7 but some did not clean up very good.
Is this due to the overcast weather?

I never experienced this with my Olympus C-4040 Zoom camera. ???

Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

[DonCoon]

28-200s of most any make are generally poor performers so what you experience is not surprising at all. It is very difficult to make a 7X lens without compromising sharpness.

Take a look at:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
and you'll note they range from poor to average.

The Sigma AF 3.8-5.6 28-200mm DL macro IF Aspherical is optically rated 2.38 (sub-average.)

[Canuck]

Hi!
I had the 70-300 (sold it) and still have the 28-80 Sigma lenses. One way to describe those lenses-they suck! They worked fine for 35mm pics and actually have some good ones there, but not digital originally. I wish I would have had the chance to bring the 10D to Crete with the Sigma 120-300 EX and get snap happy. Now that would be stunning. I look back at some of the early pics I took w/ the cheapie Sigma lens and there isn't any comparison! Of course, then the difference between a $120 lens and a $1900 lens is also a factor too. I also got another jumpstart from going from budget lenses to the Canon L glass/Sigma EX series. The 10D is especially sensitive to the lens you put on the camera. If you put a budget lens then that can result in low quality lenses. I did a side by side comparison on the differences between the lenses. A friend of mine and I went to Heathrow Int'l Airport for him to use the EOS50E and me to play with my new 10D.
Well, after massive tweeking the pics from the 28-80 lens and some shot later with the 70-300 it was extremely obvious which pics were shot with what lens.
There are quite a few I could easily submit to www.airliners.net and see no reason they won't take them. I was stunned by most of the pics and that's really hard to do. You would have to know me personally to understand that, but believe me, I'm really anal about my pics. Speaking of which, I might submit some pics.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[JMC38]

Well, I have a 14 day return window and the lens is now in the box to go back. All I need is an RMA # and it's on it's way.

I'm not a professional and don't require a $1900 lens but I do want something better.

I'll stick with the Canon lenses for now, possibly the 28-135mm IS. There are a couple of places that have them at a reasonable price and fit into my lens budget.