Karl wisely opined --
[Much snipped wisdom]
>>>I have a few aftermarkets which people sneer at and a few that look like complete rubish but they're GOOD lenses.<<<
In my experience, most aftermarket 35mm lenses I have owned are not as well-built mechanically (sturdy) as OEM lenses. If one is a hard-knocks type of user, considering pro-caliber lenses may not be a bad idea.
>>>..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.<<<
I'd like to add that in some cases, not only were their lenses 'inferior' to what is available now, but in some cases, inferior to what an advanced amateur used *then*.
Ansel wrote about an exchange he had with Weston, offering to give him a better lens than the one he used (which he had obtained at a Mexican fleamarket for a few bucks), and he also described Stieglitz's equipment as stuff that amateurs of the day would disdain. Manuel Alvarez Bravo used Olympus XA's in his '90s. Willy Ronis employed a couple of small consumer-grade Pentaxes & zooms. What LUG member would be caught dead using HCB's kit ?
But here we return to the bottom line to great images: The photographer's eye, heart and mind.
>>> 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!<<<<
BTW, the expensive, L-series, top Canon ultra-wide angle zooms (17-35, 16-35) richly evidence barrel and pincushion distortion galore.
-- Luis
