Interactive Lens Reviews and Opinion.
Digital Camera Reviews

Reviews Views Date of last review
5 64537 4/27/2014
Recommended By Average Purchase
80% of reviewers $136.25
Reader Review Rating Averages
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
Overall Rating

Keywords: Sigma Canon Nikon Minolta Pentax Wide Mid Tele Zoom 35mm


Registered: January 2014
Posts: 37
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro review by joe88
Review Date: 4/27/2014 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $65.00| Rating: 8 

Pros: big zoom range, sharp photos, 135mm very sharp with f8-11 for close-ups
Cons: some visible CA's, corners not so sharp

good sharpness, stopped down to f 8-11

extreme wide angle and tele some CA's

ideal for trips;family feasts

best results between 50 and 135mm, very sharp with f9.5

very good contrast and color transmission stopped down.

wide open a few weak

Registered: September 2006
Posts: 26
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro review by trentdp
Review Date: 1/5/2007 Would you recommend the product? No | Total Spent: $200.00| Rating: 6 

Pros: Cheap price for long zoom
Cons: Just so-so performance

I actually owned an older version of this lens under the Quantary brand from Ritz Camera. I originally bought it for use on my Nikon N60 but was never really excited by the pictures. I used it again during July 2006 on my D70 while on vacation and other times before that. It is not a bad lens but not exciting for the price. I have not owned the Nikon 28-200 version but understand it is far superior in sharpness and performance. This lens is quite good in build quality and has a metal mount. You will probably end up selling the lens for a better one so don't waste your money on this one.

Registered: November 2006
Posts: 6
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro review by awalker
Review Date: 11/25/2006 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $200.00| Rating: 5 

Pros: Price, build quality
Cons: Noisy AF, image quality

It's a good travel lens for a FF film EOS (the reason I bought it) and it's just about OK with a 20D if you need the FL range and can only carry one lens. Wouldn't pay more than $120 these days, though, and there are better lenses out there.

Registered: November 2005
Posts: 3
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro review by nspur
Review Date: 11/5/2005 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 5 

Pros: A nice little travel lens, better than you might think.
Cons: Flare at w/a, auto-focus a little tricky.

This is the latest incarnation of Sigma's popular 7x zoom for film cameras (and full frame digital too, perhaps). It's a "twin" of the well-thought-of 18-125 for DX digital cameras and has much the same characteristics.

You need to stop it down for good image quality. Wide open it's soft in the corners and while it's usable for film it's unacceptable on a full-frame digital camera under about f8. Overall image quality is above-average for this type of consumer zoom.

Auto-focus is tricky at wide angle. The trick is to zoom in to focus and hold the shutter button halfway while zooming out to compose the shot. Focus using this method is usually spot-on.

Without the lens hood (supplied) it is very prone to flare at the wide end (as is the 18-125).

The benefit of this lens is that it covers a very good range, you can leave it on the camera all day and if you pay attention to the aperture and the focus method you will get good pictures.

[Tested on Canon EOS 33 and Canon 5D]

Registered: October 2005
Posts: 1
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF Macro review by Allan
Review Date: 11/1/2005 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $80.00| Rating: 5 

Pros: Light, cheap
Cons: Stiff zoon ring, poor low light focus

I'm new to dSLR so you have to take my review with a grain of salt. I wanted a cheap lens to play with, and for under $100 on ebay (new) I don't think I could have done better than this lens. Outside, with plenty of light, this lens performs well; it focuses fast and takes fine pictures. Inside, however, the lens can hunt a bit when focusing.

The zoom ring is actually pretty stiff, which just doesn't feel great. The 18-70 kit lens (Konica Minolta 5D) is much smoother. This is not to say the zoom isn't usable; it's just stiff.

Finally, it seems that at the long end of the focal range the lens doesn't seem to feel like it's getting closer. This is to say that it feels like the zoom zooms more at the short end than the long end. I think this is common with these compact zooms. At least it's image stabilized (oh, that's only on the Maxxum 5D/7D :-)

The 28MM at the wide end is OK, but with the crop factor 18MM would be better. Since the 18-200mm is more than twice the cost of the 28-200 (street costs, that is), you have to decide for yourself if it's worth it.

For the $80 I paid, I cannot complain at all about this lens. A good first walk around lens for a newbie dSLR owner.

[note: the lens I have doesn't seem to have the manual aperture ring shown at the bottom of the picture]

Always hard to tell if this is the same exact lens, but I think it is:
<a href="" target="_blank"></a>


This document copyright © 2009-2015,, all rights reserved.