On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:02:15 +1300 Lukasz Ligezinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi all.
>Again I ask for your advice. I have a F70 with 35-80, and
>I would like to have a wider lance. From all your posts
>I learnt that best selections are primes, but I cannot
>afford it. I was thinking about 24-120 but it's not cheap
>either. Can anybody suggest a lance like 24-120 but cheaper,
>it does not have to be a Nikkor, but it should be wide (20
>or 24), or should I save up to 24-120.
I like zooms and feel that I can get good lenses from a first-tier third party
vendor. Having said that, here are my 4 cents:
I have a nice Sigma 24-70 that has served me well. I'd recommend this lens
without hesitation.
I've tried out (in a camera store) the following lenses, but don't have any
"real-world" time with them.
The 24-120 is a good lens (from reports here and in the various photo groups),
but it's heavy and can be awkward to handle. Plus, the filters it takes are
huge (I don't remember the size but I think it was at least 77mm) and
expensive.
I've looked at the 19-35 Vivitar Series 1, but was unimpressed; the entire
lens seemed to be plastic-I'm not even sure if the mount was metal. It felt
cheaply made-I'm not sure how much heavy use this model would take before
falling apart. The cost is from $130-160, which, given the "feel" of the lens,
is too much.
The Sigma 18-35 looks nice and seems to much more solidly constructed than the
Vivitar, but at ~$380 is 2.5x as much. I'd look at this one if you plan on
taking a lot of pictures with it and want a durable unit.
There are a number of other lenses available from Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma
that bear consideration-I've not had a chance to look all of them over (some
are way out of my budget range).
If you have any questions, let me know.
Jon
Jonathan A. Duke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Most people HAVE to use a PC. I GET to use a Macintosh!
On the Eighth day God created Macintosh
"Windows 95 doesn't smile back at me when I turn it on."
