AG scribed: > I use MZ-S and I am in reflection about the new lenses and second > body also. I now about the EX 2.8/70-200 but also I am interesting about > 4.0/100-300 and some normal and wide-angle. Because FA 2.8/28-70 and > 2.8/80-200 are now too expensive for me (if new) and well used are very rare > here in Russia. And FAJ 18-35 has a low optical quality.
The FAJ 18-35 isn't by any means a premium lens but it isn't too bad and I would look carefully before expecting the Sigma alternatives to be better. All my other stuff is manual focus but I got a D with the FAJ 18-35 and Sigma DC 55-200 as a package. Both lenses are ultra lightweight, flimsy plastic all over (remember I'm used to metal tanks), but perform OK and better than many of the kit lenses around now. The 18-35 gives the better results of the two although I'll be using the 16-45 as a replacement. The Sigma I'm pleased with, the results are tolerable and the reach and light weight ideal for taking rock climbing pictures - it's also cheap enough that I won't cry if it gets banged hard against a rock, although I wouldn't expect it to survive the experience :-) Rob. > In this case I try to find a good AF lenses with moderate prices. > > Sincerely yours > Arthur Grokhovsky > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 22/02/2005
