Post New Message | Read Current Messages | FAQ
This is an archived message in our
forum
Posted by Doug Clifford on November 12, 2001 at 12:46:41:
In Reply to: Quick Help Needed - quantaray or vivitar? posted by kevin on November 12, 2001 at 10:38:50:
: i am looking at buying either a quantaray 28-210 or a vivitar series 1 28-105 macro zoom lens for a minolta xg-1 but i can't find any specific info on either one. i have found mixed reviews about each as a name (very mixed about quantaray), but that was on different lenses. please respond quickly if you have any info, i need to know by 7:45 est on 11/12. Thanks for any help given.
You should do some reading first at Klaus Schroiff's http://www.photozone.de/ (hyperlink provided below) - check the composite ratings for wide-angle zooms. Over half the lenses rank as average, sub-average or poor. The lenses with the widest zoom range fair poorly. Only one extreme wide angle lens, the not-so-extreme Tamron AF 3.5-5.6 24-135mm Aspherical AD IF SP ranks as "Good." The less extreme Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 28-105mm D IF, Pentax SMC-FA 4-5.6 28-105mm, Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-105mm D and Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-85mm also rank as providing "Good" image quality.
You will not see the Vivitar or Quantaray lenses listed, however Quantaray lenses are made by Sigma, and the three Sigma wide angle to telephoto zooms (the Sigma AF 4-5.6 28-105mm UC, the Sigma AF 3.8-5.6 28-200mm DL macro IF Aspherical and Sigma AF 3.5-6.3 28-300mm DL IF Asph) all rank as "Sub-Average" or "Poor."
The problem is extreme focal length zoom lenses have to make some compromises in order for them to work, and one result is less-than-ideal image quality.
If you want quality, a better choice would be to buy two lenses, a 28-70mm lens and a 70-210mm lens. As you already know from your previous reading on other web sites, the Sigma and Quantaray lenses have received consumer criticism about consistent build quality.
Follow Ups:
Select From Our Indexes
