Hello again, So, I'll have a Nikon F80 (N80) in a few weeks, but still can't decide which lens I want with it. I'd like a lens which makes it possible to do some landscape photography, but also portraits. That's why I'd like a 24-135 or a 28-105 I've found the following lenses: Nikkor AF 28-105/3.5-4.5 IF D Sigma AF 28-105/2.8-4.0 Asf. Tamron AF SP 24-135/3.5-5.6 Asf. Sigma AF 24-135/2,8-4,5 IF Asf. The Tamron is probably a little too expensive for me. But, what about the Sigmas? Are they worth the money, or should I just go for the Nikkon? The advantage of the Sigma is ofcourse the 2.8 maximum aperture, but if the quality is really a lot less as the Nikon... Anyone can help me out here? Thanx, nixx
Not really. I'd rather keep it simple. I travel quite a bit, so, I don't want the hassle of taking 3 lenses with me every time. I might buy some fixed-focal lenses in time, but not right now.
Dear James, First of all I wisch you a happy birthday! I'm now working for a lot of time with the Nikkor 24-120 mm and I feel this a pretty good lens. If you want to spend more money you even can buy the same lens with vibration reduction. I have a lot of lenses but this is really my favoriteif I want to travel light!
This lens is now discontinued, so I would have to get it second hand.. I'll take that under consideration. The VR type is way to expensive for me. Thanx for the tip. I missed this lens because it wasn't available at on-line shops. I read some reviews of it, and they aren't so good.. For example: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120af.htm Do you have those problems also? Or is he exaggerating it? Nobody has any info on those sigma-lenses? I know everybody allways says that Sigma is 'crap', but aren't there exceptions? thanx, nixx
Oops, I replied to your F80 post before I noticed this one. To reiterate, I have a Nikkor 28-105 and am very happy with it. (If you visit www.nikonians.org they've damn near built a church to the thing!) Highly recommended.
