I just want advice about lens. I'm planning to replace my lens(35-80 f/4-5.6) that comes with the kit when I bought my N70. Which one should I buy the Nikon 28-105 "f/3.5-4.5" ($319) or the Sigma 28-105 "f/2.8-4" ($199)? Is it worth to add $100+ for Nikon or just get Sigma w/ bigger/faster aperture and cheaper? If Nikon is better, can I being an amature/beginner see the difference of the quality of the pictures or only pro people can tell the difference? I'm not planning to become a serious photographer. I just want to get great pictures and learn some basic stuff like how to use aperture and shutter control.

RL

-- RL (rldl95@mailcity.com), January 15, 2002

Answers

I've never used the Nikon 28-105, but I have heard it's a good lens. I have owned a couple of the Sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4 zooms however. My experience was that the Sigma produced a soft image wide open, especially at the ends of the zoom range. Stopping the aperture down improved things, but it was never sharp. In fact the Sigma 28-200 was actually sharper than this lens, and it wasn't very good good. Sigma makes some nice lenses, but this isn't one of them.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), January 15, 2002.

If you look around the WWW you'll find many favourable comments on the Nikon 28-105. I own one since it came out in 1999. It has a wonderful price/quality ratio.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), January 22, 2002.

i've got the sigma 28-105 and i am on my way to the shop to return it. what a big disappointment. the auto focus is unreliable - i have resorted to manual focus to make sure i get the shot. i really regret going for the cheaper option. never again. so many wasted rolls. it took me a couple of months to realise that it wasn't me, or the camera body, or the dreary english weather. it was the lens. DON't buy a sigma 28-105.

c

-- candy gourlay (candygourlay@blueyonder.co.uk), March 01, 2002.