> Another lens option to consider is a Sigma 50-500. Pop-photo claims it is > the sharpest long zoom they ever tested, (up to about three years ago). Not > cheap but I know one photographer who swears by the images (and curses the > size and weight) at the end of a shoot. If you are young, hale, and hardy, > it's four pounds should be outweighed by the image results. sheesh! So my 8+ pound Tamron 200-500 is a bit weighty then! ;-) nice glass though even compared to the newer glass I've tried.** The reality is that there's no one glass maker who's going to get every lens right every time, and there's an equal chance that even the less reputable makers are going to get a few right. I heard that a number of the optical engineers at Nikon were the folk who after leaving Nikon started up the Tokina brand, if that's true then odds are they make a few good lenses too.. I have a few aftermarkets which people sneer at and a few that look like complete rubish but they're GOOD lenses. having said that, I've objectively and subjectively evaluated them and found their strengths and weaknesses.. not something many people would want to spend all there days doing! but think for a minute - what are you going to be using these lenses for? A soft lens in *perfect* for portraiture.. A sharp centred, soft edged lens great for wildlife (see the Novoflex range). What lighting conditions/fim speed? A super high res, flat field lens used for shooting rockj concerts with 3200 ASA film is a waste when anything marginally better than the bottom of a coke bottle will have enough lens res to cope with the film res. ..and what of the masters of years gone bye, those ladies and gentlemen who's works we hold in such high esteem? The lenses they used back then were often inferior to what's available now. How did they make such dramatic and inspired images, format aside? By getting to know their lenses and using them in the appropriate situations. **actually those tamrons are so bloody good, and so vastly superior to anything else in their time and still to this day from what I've seen that I bought three of them :-) Buy the best you can afford AFTER you've tried it, and after you've decided what it's to be used for (realistically), and after you've worked out how durable it will be in the anticipated shooting environment. Personally I'd rule out the Sigma unless barrel and pincussion distortion are considered acceptable to you, and don't even think of using it without a lens hood to combat the flare! my 2c worth k
