I have had the Sigma 18-200mm lens (non OS version) for some time now and have been very happy with its quality, handling and zoom range. However, since getting my Pentax 50-135 DA* lens I have discovered something strange with the Sigma Lens.

I was interested to see the difference between the 135 and 200mm end of the zoom, how much extra was the Sigma giving me? So I set the zoom to about 135 on the indicator and checked the Info which indicated 133mm then looking through the zoom I zoomed to 200. There was hardly any difference! So I decided to run a few tests to see, the following pictures are the result and are not cropped or adjusted in any way, just resized to 800pixls wide (sorry the photos are not great, just to illustrate field of view):
Sigma 70-210 @140 (Exif)



Sigma 18-200 @133 (Exif)



Pentax 50-135 @135 (Exif)



See what I mean!

I tested the field of view at 18mm against the 18-55 standard and it looked the same. I also took the lens to 200 and compared with the 135 on the DA* it seemed similar close (about 10ft) but better for a further subject! Weird!
Sigma 18-200 @133 (Exif)



Sigma 18-200 @200 (Exif)



Pentax 50-135 @135 (Exif)



So is my 18-200mm lens really only an 18-135mm zoom? Does anyone also have this lens and are you seeing the same thing? Also, what about the 18-250 (Tamron or Pentax)?

This is the kind of story I like! I entered a photo taken by my son (with my K10D) last summer into a competition and he got the London runner up position, invited to a galery show opening and had post cards made of his photo! He was 3 1/2 at the time!

I recently saw an article on taking car photos in (I think) Photography Monthy written about a pro. The photo in question looked amazing, full of drama and just hit the mark. Then I turned the page and saw the shot out of the camera - distinctly average! What he had that made the difference was the experience and knowledge to carry out very effective post processing. Many amateurs don't have the time to get to this level, however, composition can easily match that of the pro.

With Pros how often do you see what comes out of the camera? You see the finished result.

Anyway, as a Pentax fan, I always get wound up by the general (and uninformed) opinion that Canon and Nikon take the best pictures, they don't - Hasselblad do! .

There has been the debate (and ever will be) that a better camera makes for better pictures. The truth really lies in the lens and the better the lens the more opportunity to get it right you should have. Better lenses cost more - sometimes out of the reach of us amateurs but essential for the image of a pro!

A pro should take better pictures - they have so much more opportunity to, however, when the opportunity comes to an amateur the picture will be indistringuishable from the Pros. Just my opinion.

When I got my K10D I though the same thing, that my pictures wern't that sharp. Then I chenged from the kit lens (good as it is) and things got better. I always leave sharpening to post processing as I think it does a better job then in camera.

The job of the bridge camera is often to produce print ready pictures so JPG processing is quite high in camera.

I suggest trying out some other lenses at the same focal length - take your camear with card in to the shop and take some test shots to check on a big screen.

All the details you need are in the link proided. AP gives it a rating of 4 stars out of 5. Its called the RayFlash.

No, this appears to be a TTL unit and the K20D does not support TTL, it sould work in manual mode though.

You can get an adapter (reviewed in this weeks AP mag!) - http://www.flaghead.co.uk/pages/ringflash-intro.html

Very nice, and I think very natural looking.

I got round this by installing a free FTP server on my machine and then using an FTP client to transfer files - all for free and easy under XP Home. and to prevent any risks associated to running th eFTP server, I only run it when needed easy to activate over VNC!

I would also go with VNC, works very well.

Have been following this thread and yesterday I tested out a Sigma 70-300 against the Tamron 70-300 and decided the Tamron was sharper though the focus was not as nippy as the Sigma (non-APO). I went home to check prices and found it seemed to average £115. Jessops price was £199! The Sigma was £99.

The sales assistant, when I went back today, let slip that this was one of the lenses sold for half price when bought with a camera! Half price! What a con! To buy it on its own was double! Some bargain their bundle deal seems now!

Anyway, off to SRS to get it for £89!

This will be a stop gap for a year or so till Sigma (or Pentax) bring out an SDM lens that zooms to 400mm which is what I really want. However, the macro facility might prove interesting.