I could not rank them. Wouldn't you have to test/try them to do that? Of the bunch, I have tried the Sigma 15-30 (Nikon Mount on D100), Phoenix 19-35 and Tokina 19-35. I ended up purchasing the Tokina. I would expect the Pentax 16-45 and 20-35 to be better, but they are more than 2X the price. You'll probably have to find some reviews and then make an informed decision.
Good luck, Bruce Thursday, January 8, 2004, 8:28:31 PM, you wrote: m> At 08:16 PM 8/01/2004 -0800, you wrote: >>Robert, >> >>There is always the digital only 16-45 that is coming out. m> Any indication as to when it will hit the market? Is it known how much we m> can expect it to cost? >>You didn't mention >>whether you needed it to work on a film camera or not. m> I think we have more than enough of 'film' lenses. Dig-only is OK. >>You also >>didn't mention a price range. m> Will consider all. I am looking at the best compromise between $$$ and quality. >>If you need the lens to work with a film body too, there is the FA >>20-35/4 - well thought of lens. Also, I have had a pretty good >>experience with the Tokina AF193 - 19-35/3.5/4.5. It is quite a >>bargain, built pretty well and even has quite reasonable manual focus >>feel. >> >>There is also the Sigma DA 20-40/2.8, Sigma 17-35/2.8-4, Sigma >>15-30/3.5-4.5 and the Tamron AF 17-35 F/2.8-4. Much depends on the >>price you want to pay. m> Obviously the less the better, BUT $100 or $200 extra is not going to stop m> us from getting a decent lens. m> If you were to rank them (quality wise), what would the top 5 be? We need m> nice, sharp lens, 2.8 or 4 - no major difference. Last thing we want is m> something like the old 28-80 lens - Lucky it got dropped onto the concrete. m> ---- (*)o(*) ---- m> Robert m> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
