> : Whatever the tests say, you are right, try them for yourself. > : I have and was forced to admit (painful on the old pocket!) that Sigma > : was a false economy for me. The qulity does not match the real thing. > > > I saw a shining example of this Good pun un(clean)Bob when talking about flare ;o) > The shot I was shown was causing the student a great deal of confusion as > the lens was a current pro series fixed aperture Sigma, I've been following Sigma vs Canon debates for years. Guess what, the "latest" Sigma has always dealt with the problems of the previous version (the same previous version that had no problems). > I have a Sigma myself which I like though I *really* have to think about > lens hood use and controlling the flare to get anything good out of it. Flare is only one issue - but in part it is lens testing. What are the results people want to read? Resolution was the gold standard for years - then people noticed Sigma were VERY soft around the edges of the frame. So now they comment on centre and edge resolution. Flare is not something so well quantified - but from my bad experiences too I can say that flare (+ internal reflections) were the main flaw in my Sigma lenses. Heck another was AF but since most times I use MF anyway (quicker and more accurate) that wouldn't have affected my decision to dump them. Really, there is no single parameter to judge whether a lens is good or not. YMMV is not a dismissive statement, it depends on the uses. - Distortion (barrel and pincushion) is not such a big deal for pictorial work (flowers) but a bummer for architecture / copy work. - Colour casts are no big deal for B&W workers but they may be for product shoots. - Flare is no big deal for flat lighting but it can be for sunsets (/ astro). Bob
