hooked another one...

[EOSThree]

When I started buying EF lenses, one of the first lenses I bought was a Sigma 28-200, I thought I was paying an awful lot for this lens. After all it cost almost as much as the EOS Elan II I was buying at the time. The build quality was marginal at best and the image quality was just adequate. I eventually traded it for my current 28-105 usm II. I bought the L glass after that and I am hooked, I want more. I understand that Sigma has come a long way in image quality and build quality with their EX pro lines with their HSM motors. I still have a Canon bias though, created by my earlier experience with Sigma. I have been considering the Sigma EX 12-24 for my wide end, but for the same price I keep coming back to the Canon 17-40L. I had the hardest time getting over the idea that a body is just a fancy light box, other than features they all do the same thing: get light to the film(sensor). The lens is the important part, they cost a lot more than the body, and are the major determinate in image quality. http://www.photodo.com has quite a lens test library, although the MTF tests are very scientific and are not the end all to lens quality.

[yaronsh]

When I started buying EF lenses, one of the first lenses I bought was a Sigma 28-200, I thought I was paying an awful lot for this lens. After all it cost almost as much as the EOS Elan II I was buying at the time. The build quality was marginal at best and the image quality was just adequate. I eventually traded it for my current 28-105 usm II.

I resisted the temptation to get a 28-200 based on the advice in the following thread on this forum (one of the first), titled, "Lense recommendation":
Lense recommendation

As well as info from fora on other sites. Perhaps your negative experience with this lense is simply b/c with such a big zoom range you inevitably lose quality...

- Yaron