Filter Reviews

I got this lens to replace my 600mm reflector which is fixed aperture with a dreadfully small depth of focus. This lens is spectacular by comparison: excellent focus depth, with F4-6.3 it is light-strong enough to get away with a lot of stuff that reflector lenses don't allow as they suck so much light. I do motorsport and nature photography, so fast exposure times are key, and this lens allows for good flexibility in difficult light conditions or where you need to be super-quick without compromising depht-of-focus. I use this lens on a Canon EOS 7E elan, and this is an outstanding combo for motosport and nature shots, since both the lens and the camera are very quick and very quiet. My two only complaints with this product are the weight (very heavy, bring Advil to shooting a whole Grand Prix weekend!)and the fact that the zoom is a little slow-going, but maybe that'll easen up with more use. Overall another very solid Sigma product, unbeatable value for the money. I shut off the autofocus sometimes when I do difficult action pics where there's potential for automatic focussing errors, but if you don't, be prepared to bring extra batteries, since moving the autofocus in a big lens like this will suck the power out of your camera in no time.

Heavy as lead. Slight "stickiness" in the zoom when changing directions at full extension, but nothing major, feels like it will work out. Nice finish, kind of retro, speckled, grainy finish, good gripping and looking. Good, very quiet focusing. Excellent sharpness, using it on a D30 digital, so can't really tell about aberrations at widest and longest, since I lose the edges with my CMOS anyway. FOR THE MONEY, I don't think you have a better choice. Of course, if you can afford it, get the Canon "L." Don't think you'll be disappointed for the price.

I just recently got into photography as a retirement hobby and was fortunate to be able to acquire a Canon D60 within two days of ordering one from Kaimuki Camera Store in Honolulu.

To complete the Canon system I purchased Canon Lenses, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM, Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.5-6 IS USM, and a Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM. I also got a Tamron 28-300mm UltraZoom XR f/3.5-6.3 LD Aspherical Macro, and my daughter got me the Sigma EX 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO RF Zoom lens, along with the Sigma 2.0 teleconvertor lens, for my retirement party.

This Sigma 50-500 lens is like magic for me in that I've taken pictures of the city from my balcony and upon proccessing the images on my computer there are images that I didn't even know were there through my naked eye. I was amazed that I could read freeway signs that were easily over ten miles away.

Tonight my wife, daughter and I went out to shoot pictures of the full moon. We were all pleasantly surprised when we could see the details of the moon's surface, with the craters and other distinct features. By the way, I did have the Sigma 2X teleconvertor attached. If I'm not mistaken, along with the extra teleconvertor's 2X power, the magnification was also further enhanced by the inherent 1.6 mutiplier effect through the digital camera's characteristics.

All of the other reviewers are correct in their opinion of the 50-500's weight. It is heavy, and so far, I've gotten a lot of comments about the neat "retro" look with the crinkled black finish just as Bluegun opined. I also noticed that on several occassions people in front of me actually moved aside to give me room to shoot pictures at our Aloha Week events and once at a University of Hawaii sporting event. I guess the big tripod, and once, monopod monted Sigma zoom possibly gave me the look of a pro, which, of course, I'm far from.

I really like Sigma's locking feature so that the lens won't creep open when moving about. Also, when trying to manually focus the lens it is pretty tight, or sticky, as Bluegun has noted, however, I may be wrong, but I kind of like it tight rather than having it too loose. When I checked for comparisons in features/pricing this Sigma 50-500 is a definite bargain. I can't seem to find any comparable Canon lens with that range of the 50-500. The closest Canon has is not anywhere near Sigma's price points. Of course I pretty well believe that Canon's quality/price against Sigma's is definitly not comparing apples and apples. What Sigma has done, however, is help to make a big powerful lens that is affordable for just about anyone who can't affordably justify Canon's at the moment. Case in point - Sigma's 50-500 zoom has made it possible for my daughter to have the luxury of purchsing a good as well as impressive "big lens" for her daddy on her student's budget.

I have owned this lens for about two years, and found that it was a fine lens at first, when I was just starting to learn with a good camera, but that it quickly outwore it's usefulness and now mainly gathers dust.

Sigma gave up a lot on this lens to add the Macro element, which lets you focus in very close. The focus is pretty soft at longer lengths, producing pictures that are noticably unsharp. There are manual focusing difficulties resulting from saving much of the focal rings for the macro, so that you have a lot of room to turn for focusing from 2 to 3 feet but very little precision in focusing from twenty to thirty feet (and that is a range I use much more).

Also, the lens has difficulties in low light, zooming in and out trying to focus on something, anything. I got this in a kit with the 70-300 lens, which I still use all the time and I think is a good lens for the money. On this lens, I would recommend investing instead on a good 50mm lens and just taking a few steps forward or backward to get your shots -- they will be much better shots than with this zoom.

First, let me say this lens is one of my favorites. I own this lens for my Pentax PZ-1 and have read MANY reviews about it. The price is cheap. In fact, it's arguably the cheapest lenses in it's class. But don't mistake a cheap price as the sign of a bad lens. I use this lens for many occassions and at it almost always delivers GREAT pictures. Yes, it's not the single best lens in the world, but it is as good as many of the lenses I've used that are two or three times the price. Plus, if you break this one you can buy another without breaking your piggy bank ... or your credit card limit.

The two complaints most people make about this lens are, "It's a slow lens" and "It's almost impossible to focus manually." Let me put both those complaints to rest right now. First, when photographers refer to how "slow" a lens is, they don't mean how fast it can focus, they mean the F-stop setting. This lens is a F3.5-5.6. Granted, some expensive lenses at this focal length can go as low as F1.x, but most can't. And most experienced (and novice) photographers can use any lens that can go below F8. So, when people call this lens "slow," they should be talking about F-stops, not autofocus. I for one have found this lens to be more than fast enough for hand-held use. It's only been too slow once in about 1,000 shots.

Second, the focusing ring on this puppy is short. That means it's hard to focus manually. Still, that's to be expected on a smaller, cheaper lens such as this. Although it's tough to focus manually, it's not impossible. I've used manual focus on this lens several times and got great results ... just move the ring SLOWLY and you will get great manual focus. Nevertheless, keep in mind this IS an autofocus lens ... most people won't focus the lens manually. And on that note, the autofocus is spectacular.

Add in the macro ability of this lens and you've got one heck of a package! Oh, and don't forget ... It's CHEAP! If you can only afford one lens for your next vacation, make it this lens ... and use the $100+ you saved to buy more goodies.

I got this lens for everyday use. It has a decent zoom range and a macro mode, making it more versatile than its Canon counterpart. The regular mode takes beautiful pictures at any distance. The macro mode is a little limited, but it does let you get just inches from the subject, good enough for basic close-up work. The close-ups were crystal clear. Although you can get closer with dedicated macro lenses, most people, like me, will find this lens more than sufficient.

I have owned this lens for about two years, and found that it was a fine lens at first, when I was just starting to learn with a good camera, but that it quickly outwore it's usefulness and now mainly gathers dust.

Sigma gave up a lot on this lens to add the Macro element, which lets you focus in very close. The focus is pretty soft at longer lengths, producing pictures that are noticably unsharp. There are manual focusing difficulties resulting from saving much of the focal rings for the macro, so that you have a lot of room to turn for focusing from 2 to 3 feet but very little precision in focusing from twenty to thirty feet (and that is a range I use much more).

Also, the lens has difficulties in low light, zooming in and out trying to focus on something, anything. I got this in a kit with the 70-300 lens, which I still use all the time and I think is a good lens for the money. On this lens, I would recommend investing instead on a good 50mm lens and just taking a few steps forward or backward to get your shots -- they will be much better shots than with this zoom.

First, let me say this lens is one of my favorites. I own this lens for my Pentax PZ-1 and have read MANY reviews about it. The price is cheap. In fact, it's arguably the cheapest lenses in it's class. But don't mistake a cheap price as the sign of a bad lens. I use this lens for many occassions and at it almost always delivers GREAT pictures. Yes, it's not the single best lens in the world, but it is as good as many of the lenses I've used that are two or three times the price. Plus, if you break this one you can buy another without breaking your piggy bank ... or your credit card limit.

The two complaints most people make about this lens are, "It's a slow lens" and "It's almost impossible to focus manually." Let me put both those complaints to rest right now. First, when photographers refer to how "slow" a lens is, they don't mean how fast it can focus, they mean the F-stop setting. This lens is a F3.5-5.6. Granted, some expensive lenses at this focal length can go as low as F1.x, but most can't. And most experienced (and novice) photographers can use any lens that can go below F8. So, when people call this lens "slow," they should be talking about F-stops, not autofocus. I for one have found this lens to be more than fast enough for hand-held use. It's only been too slow once in about 1,000 shots.

Second, the focusing ring on this puppy is short. That means it's hard to focus manually. Still, that's to be expected on a smaller, cheaper lens such as this. Although it's tough to focus manually, it's not impossible. I've used manual focus on this lens several times and got great results ... just move the ring SLOWLY and you will get great manual focus. Nevertheless, keep in mind this IS an autofocus lens ... most people won't focus the lens manually. And on that note, the autofocus is spectacular.

Add in the macro ability of this lens and you've got one heck of a package! Oh, and don't forget ... It's CHEAP! If you can only afford one lens for your next vacation, make it this lens ... and use the $100+ you saved to buy more goodies.

I got this lens for everyday use. It has a decent zoom range and a macro mode, making it more versatile than its Canon counterpart. The regular mode takes beautiful pictures at any distance. The macro mode is a little limited, but it does let you get just inches from the subject, good enough for basic close-up work. The close-ups were crystal clear. Although you can get closer with dedicated macro lenses, most people, like me, will find this lens more than sufficient.

I have owned this lens for about two years, and found that it was a fine lens at first, when I was just starting to learn with a good camera, but that it quickly outwore it's usefulness and now mainly gathers dust.

Sigma gave up a lot on this lens to add the Macro element, which lets you focus in very close. The focus is pretty soft at longer lengths, producing pictures that are noticably unsharp. There are manual focusing difficulties resulting from saving much of the focal rings for the macro, so that you have a lot of room to turn for focusing from 2 to 3 feet but very little precision in focusing from twenty to thirty feet (and that is a range I use much more).

Also, the lens has difficulties in low light, zooming in and out trying to focus on something, anything. I got this in a kit with the 70-300 lens, which I still use all the time and I think is a good lens for the money. On this lens, I would recommend investing instead on a good 50mm lens and just taking a few steps forward or backward to get your shots -- they will be much better shots than with this zoom.

First, let me say this lens is one of my favorites. I own this lens for my Pentax PZ-1 and have read MANY reviews about it. The price is cheap. In fact, it's arguably the cheapest lenses in it's class. But don't mistake a cheap price as the sign of a bad lens. I use this lens for many occassions and at it almost always delivers GREAT pictures. Yes, it's not the single best lens in the world, but it is as good as many of the lenses I've used that are two or three times the price. Plus, if you break this one you can buy another without breaking your piggy bank ... or your credit card limit.

The two complaints most people make about this lens are, "It's a slow lens" and "It's almost impossible to focus manually." Let me put both those complaints to rest right now. First, when photographers refer to how "slow" a lens is, they don't mean how fast it can focus, they mean the F-stop setting. This lens is a F3.5-5.6. Granted, some expensive lenses at this focal length can go as low as F1.x, but most can't. And most experienced (and novice) photographers can use any lens that can go below F8. So, when people call this lens "slow," they should be talking about F-stops, not autofocus. I for one have found this lens to be more than fast enough for hand-held use. It's only been too slow once in about 1,000 shots.

Second, the focusing ring on this puppy is short. That means it's hard to focus manually. Still, that's to be expected on a smaller, cheaper lens such as this. Although it's tough to focus manually, it's not impossible. I've used manual focus on this lens several times and got great results ... just move the ring SLOWLY and you will get great manual focus. Nevertheless, keep in mind this IS an autofocus lens ... most people won't focus the lens manually. And on that note, the autofocus is spectacular.

Add in the macro ability of this lens and you've got one heck of a package! Oh, and don't forget ... It's CHEAP! If you can only afford one lens for your next vacation, make it this lens ... and use the $100+ you saved to buy more goodies.

I got this lens for everyday use. It has a decent zoom range and a macro mode, making it more versatile than its Canon counterpart. The regular mode takes beautiful pictures at any distance. The macro mode is a little limited, but it does let you get just inches from the subject, good enough for basic close-up work. The close-ups were crystal clear. Although you can get closer with dedicated macro lenses, most people, like me, will find this lens more than sufficient.

I have owned this lens for about two years, and found that it was a fine lens at first, when I was just starting to learn with a good camera, but that it quickly outwore it's usefulness and now mainly gathers dust.

Sigma gave up a lot on this lens to add the Macro element, which lets you focus in very close. The focus is pretty soft at longer lengths, producing pictures that are noticably unsharp. There are manual focusing difficulties resulting from saving much of the focal rings for the macro, so that you have a lot of room to turn for focusing from 2 to 3 feet but very little precision in focusing from twenty to thirty feet (and that is a range I use much more).

Also, the lens has difficulties in low light, zooming in and out trying to focus on something, anything. I got this in a kit with the 70-300 lens, which I still use all the time and I think is a good lens for the money. On this lens, I would recommend investing instead on a good 50mm lens and just taking a few steps forward or backward to get your shots -- they will be much better shots than with this zoom.

First, let me say this lens is one of my favorites. I own this lens for my Pentax PZ-1 and have read MANY reviews about it. The price is cheap. In fact, it's arguably the cheapest lenses in it's class. But don't mistake a cheap price as the sign of a bad lens. I use this lens for many occassions and at it almost always delivers GREAT pictures. Yes, it's not the single best lens in the world, but it is as good as many of the lenses I've used that are two or three times the price. Plus, if you break this one you can buy another without breaking your piggy bank ... or your credit card limit.

The two complaints most people make about this lens are, "It's a slow lens" and "It's almost impossible to focus manually." Let me put both those complaints to rest right now. First, when photographers refer to how "slow" a lens is, they don't mean how fast it can focus, they mean the F-stop setting. This lens is a F3.5-5.6. Granted, some expensive lenses at this focal length can go as low as F1.x, but most can't. And most experienced (and novice) photographers can use any lens that can go below F8. So, when people call this lens "slow," they should be talking about F-stops, not autofocus. I for one have found this lens to be more than fast enough for hand-held use. It's only been too slow once in about 1,000 shots.

Second, the focusing ring on this puppy is short. That means it's hard to focus manually. Still, that's to be expected on a smaller, cheaper lens such as this. Although it's tough to focus manually, it's not impossible. I've used manual focus on this lens several times and got great results ... just move the ring SLOWLY and you will get great manual focus. Nevertheless, keep in mind this IS an autofocus lens ... most people won't focus the lens manually. And on that note, the autofocus is spectacular.

Add in the macro ability of this lens and you've got one heck of a package! Oh, and don't forget ... It's CHEAP! If you can only afford one lens for your next vacation, make it this lens ... and use the $100+ you saved to buy more goodies.

I got this lens for everyday use. It has a decent zoom range and a macro mode, making it more versatile than its Canon counterpart. The regular mode takes beautiful pictures at any distance. The macro mode is a little limited, but it does let you get just inches from the subject, good enough for basic close-up work. The close-ups were crystal clear. Although you can get closer with dedicated macro lenses, most people, like me, will find this lens more than sufficient.

Bought my new Sony and in less than four weeks did not work. Calling Sony just left me with buzy signals. Finally got through and they gave me no help, finally got fixed and is broken again after 6 months........WON`T buy another Sony.....

The TV quality on this Projection TV is so good that I often forget it isn't a tube. Sony's are always superior in quality and this TV lives up to the Sony name.

Agonized for many months deciding on a rear projection TV formy house and compared just about every model available (except forHDTV models) and found the Sony KP-48V80 to be the best out there. Keep in mind that the picture quality is only as good as the incoming signal (many stores have projection TVs connected to DVD players only, be sure to view TV with other sources when comparing). True, the Sony is the most expensive analog for it's size out there but there's a reason for that. This TV can't be beat (except maybe by the XBR rear projection series). END

At 6.2 Ounces, This Is The Lightest Compact Zoom Lens In The EF Line...An Excellent Value...The Aspherical Element Makes It Compact And Helps Obtain High Contrast Images...At The 80mm Length Is A Good First Step...Lead Free Glass Is Used...Great All Purpose Lens, And Cheap, But If You Can, Go For The 28-80mm Or The 28-200mm...They Will Give You Better Performance...

Lens Accepts 52mm Filters (Polorizer And UV Highly Suggested)...

*Specs Taken From Canon Catalogue...

So this is a great starter lens, it came with my canon body when I got my camera, and I've used it tons. It is light, smooth, fast to focus, and cheap. My only problem was the number of times I found myself stepping back because the 35mm end of the zoom wasn't wide enough. I now carry a 22-55 instead and love that lens (come on Amazon - get it in stock). If you're on a budget then this lens is great. If you can afford the little extra go for the 28-80 instead.

The Canon EOS series has made picture taking accessable to the average person. One can truly take top quality pictures with this camera with minimal training. This is the basic lens that one will need for everday photography. With it one can shoot anywhere from midrange shots up to a 80mm zoom. Pick this up with a 80mm-300mm zoom lens and you are set for any photo adventure. The quality is great and you can rest assured that it will last for years.

Canon EF Lenses Have A Built In AF Motor..Compared To Camera Body-Based AF Motors, Lens-Based Motors Have Driving Energy With Lower Transmission Loss...The AF Operation Is Therefore Quick, Quiet, And Highly Precise...All EF Lenses Also Have EMD (Electromagnetic Diaphragm) To Control The Aperture Electronically...The Aperture Can Be Set Either With An Electronic Dial Or With The Electronic Pulse Signal Sent According To The Exposure Reading...The Aperture Control Is Therefore Precise And Umnatched...

To Go With Canon's Reputation, They Introduce A Lens That Is Truely Immaculate...Its Telephoto Zoom From 80mm-200mm Is A Great Addition To A Current Setup With A 28-80mm Lens And Is Ideal For Shooting Sports, Wildlife, Or Portraits...It Can Compress An Image To Give Dramatic Effects...The Optics And Construction Are Compact And Lightweight (Compared To My Nikon FM Setup) And The 4x Zoom Is Great...A Very Steady Shot Even At Maximum Zoom...The Apature Stops Are Adaquate, Being f4.5-f5.6, But Could Be Wider...All In All An Awesome Lens For The Money...Another Canon Hit...

*Specs Taken From Canon's Catalogue...

This is the other lens I got when I bought my Canon body (the main one being a 35-80). It lasted me a long time, especially when you drop a tele-convertor into the mix. It is most definately an amateur lens. Don't expect poster sharp results. But then, look at the price. You get what you pay for and for what you pay for this lens you get a great deal. I've since upgraded to a 75-300 and passed this lens on to a friend who also loves it. If you can afford the extra (about ($) more) I'd recommend the 75-300 for extra range. If not, I've no complaints about this lens.

As an added bonus, if you get the other 'starter' lens, the 35-80, the filter screw size is the same so you'll need to buy fewer filters as they will be usable on both lenses.

It is an excellent extension to your 28-80 lens. At 149.00 its worth every dime. The ease of attachment is what canon is all about. The lens gives your the extra mile to increase your view. Bottom Line : its a must buy for every canon camera owner

Received the TV and enjoyed it for 2 months and then it broke! I am in the process now of trying to get it repaired and this is turning into a difficult ordeal. I would not recommened Toshiba to anyone.

I compared this TV with 35" SONY Trinitron and other major brands. I bought this because this has Component Video Input. For SONY I have to get a Wega to have this I am not thrilled with the picture but it is ok. The remote is the most annoying one. You can only control a TV,VCR and Cable. You cannot control Satellite or any other electronics. I ended up buying a "6 all in one" remote which works well with all my systems. The side switch in he remote to select TV/VCR/Cable is another annoying thing. Otherwise the remote is ok (If you have only a TV|VCR|Cable). This TV has Component Video Input however the S video signal looks much clearer to me than the Component Video Input with my DVD. The tube is a large curvy one comparing to Sony Trinitron. No auto sound control. It has 2 RF,3Composite ,1Svideo,1Component Input and 1 output. This is very rarely found in other similar system. Comparing to SONY Wega price wise this is not a bad TV.

I have had my Toshiba CZ36V61 for a few trouble free years. A friend has the same TV and he loves his as well. The only thing I wish it had was a clock. Although I didn't buy a clock I bought a TV and that is what I got, a great TV.