In article <3321D2C3.B04@lagoon.ultranet.com>, pnelson@lagoon.ultranet.com says...
>T. Schooler wrote:
>> In article <33207EB8.41E5@lagoon.ultranet.foo.com>,
>> pnelson@lagoon.ultranet.foo.com says...
>> >HARVT wrote:

>> >> SIGMA AF 400 5.6 APO , with soft case, E++ 285.00

>> >Speaking as an owner of this lens, the case
>> >isn't the only thing that's soft about it!

>> Maybe yours is defective ? While it obviously isn't an ED
>> Nikkor or an L Canon, it's quite a decent lens for the
>> money.

>I've read several test reports of this lens (all
>written after I bought mine, unfortunately) which
>reached the same conclusion. They didn't pan it;
>they just said that it's very soft, but that for a
>wildlife or sports photographer on an extremely
>tight budget it might still be a reasonable choice.
>
>There's a common idea among amateur photographers
>that the only difference between the idie (Sigma,
>Tokina, etc) lenses and the manufacturer's lenses
>are mechanical (and price) but that optically they're
>the same. I bought the Sigma back when I still believed
>that.
>
>I'm not panning your lens, but when you used the
>word "soft" in your notice, I couldn't resist pointing
>out the irony.

I was tempted, too, and enjoyed your comment. ;-)
I, too, bought one of these, based on the sorta semi-glowing
reports of its optical prowess, only to find it expedient
to quickly return it to the dealer and take a loss with the
restocking fee - it was distinctly not crisp (not really soft,
just not very sharp - an unacceptable lens). Never could figure
out the hype over it that was extant for a while...;-) I had a
Tokina 400mm before that that was even worse, hard as that is
to believe! A 400mm f6.8 Spiratone from many years ago was
a more satisfying lens, both optically, and in value (at least
it was REALLY cheap!). I currently use an older-version Nikkor
500mm f8 mirror for a long, light, inexpensive lens, and it is
noticeably better than any of the above 400's were.
Hope This Helps