Hi, Godfrey. > I no longer even look at Sigma products, however, having been burned too > frequently in the past by them.
Yes, I've heard a few disparaging comments about them. However, perhaps not all of their lenses are built the same way, and Sigma may have gone through a "cheap" period that they learned from and are now putting out better lenses - I really don't know at all. I'm much more familiar with some of the Vivitar (Series 1), Tokina (AT-X), and Tamron (SP) lenses (although almost all of my experience has been with manual focus lenses) - I don't think I've ever owned a Sigma at all. > However, I'd be very skeptical of there being any substantive > improvement between it and the Pentax 28-105/3.2-4.5. I guess the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 sounds pretty good. It's a bit faster than the other two FA 28-105's, and I guess it's a decent lens, too. I've been using (on my DS) the FA 28-200/3.8-5.6 quite a bit (for "family photos", etc. - not really for more "serious" shooting - <g>), and I've been pleasantly surprised at just what it's been able to do (within its design limitations, of course) - I think it might be a better APS DSLR lens than a full-frame 35mm film lens. I'd like a faster lens, and I think that 28mm-105mm (on the DS) might be a good zoom range. > If you want a better lens than that, the Pentax 24-90/4 is the one I'd > choose. I think that 90mm at the long end might be a little short for the my usual "family photos" situation, but thanks for the suggestion. I think that the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 might be a better bet. Fred
