I'm looking for light weight travel lens. A couple weeks ago I had tested Sigma AF 17-35 f/2.8-4 EX HSM - good lens for it's price, mechanically - excellent, optically - acceptable. If I get such amount of bucks I buy it. Now about Sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4 Asph as light weight travel lens, but about it I'm not so shore. Probably in this (28-105) range for the same price Tokina AF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 SD or Tamron 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) or finally Vivitar 28-105 f/2.8 - 3.8 (series1)(I didn't find any review about it) is better choice vs. well built (and your recommended) but more expensive Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM or very interesting and expensive Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 LD ASP (IF). I've checked - Sigma and Tokina both have non-rotating front lenses, prices is pretty close, about Tamron there isn't a lot of information. I'm still thinking....... Sigma's quality vs. Tokina's or Tamron's lens quality ? I'm traveling very often and haven't possibilities to carry lot of heavy photo equipment with me. Had someone experience with this range (28-105) zoom lenses. Thanks. Kristians

-- Kristians Luhaers (kristians@mail.lv), June 21, 2000

Answers

The Sigma you mentioned I found to be quite soft at the long end, and sold mine. The Tamron f2.8 is definately not a compact lens in any stretch of the imagination--it is a monster, and not that sharp wide open. I have Nikon equipment, and ended up with a 24 to 120 that is exceptional. I bet the Canon lens is in the same league. If you have a critical eye, I doubt that you'd be happy with any of the inexpensive wide to tele zoom. It is a very hard lens range to do well, and that is why the better lenses cost more in this range.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 21, 2000.

I have to agree with Andrew Schank about the 28-105 f:3.8-4 Sigma. In fact the 28-200 Sigma that I had was noticably sharper, and it wasn't very good. The Canon 28-105 is a bunch better.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), June 21, 2000.

I have used Sigma 28 -105 asp lense. It is quite a good bargain for the money. Its focusing is fast and sharp, except its Auto focus hunts if you are taking picture in the dark.

-- Ganesh Prabhakar (gprabhakar@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

You might give some consideration to the Canon 28-135 IS lens in addition to the ones you are looking at. It's not cheap ($500), but the Image Stabilization feature is awesome if you need to handhold at slower shutter speeds.

It does weigh about a pound, about the same as a good 28-200 zoom from Tamron or Sigma.

-- Gary Berg (Gary_Berg@bigfoot.com), June 25, 2000.

Kristians, If it is a light travel outfit you are after, don't rule out fixed lenses. A lot of people who use zooms are always at the far ends... 28 or 105. While the zoom is fast,(in operation) and versital, optically you can't beat prime lenses. A 28 and 85mm lens combo will give you the performance you need, allow lower light photography, and at the time of use be lighter than the zoom. A couple of steps back and forth will allow framing. This is just an Idea... if you are 100% sure you want to go with the zoom... good luck. Al

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 30, 2000.

I'll go ahead and add this to the database, since I recently acquired a used Tokina 28-105/3.5-4.5D Aspherical at a price that I couldn't pass up. I put it on an N50 that I acquired for a song, and use the pair for knocking about with my eight-month-old, who really likes cameras. When I don't have to fear tiny fingers and a slobbery mouth all over my photo gear, I use an N90s and a Nikon 24-85/2.8-4D. I used to own the Nikon 24-120/3.5-5.6D.

I have been very impressed with the Tokina. It has less rectilinear distortion at either extreme than either Nikon zoom. It's built rock solid. AF is quick on the N90s, slower but still usable on the N50. And, it has decent close-focusing, to about 2 feet. Flare control is very good, even without a hood. Color balance is slightly warmer than the Nikon glass, which is fine with me. It's nice to have the speed (relatively speaking) - f/5.6 max aperture on the long end of the 24-120 (and many other 28-105s from various makers) is just slow enough to be really annoying in a lot of situations.

However, as the poster above suggested, don't overlook primes as a fast and light travel kit. For my last two "big" trips (Germany and England), I took just a 24/2 and a 50/1.4, and I never felt like I missed a shot due to focal length. Indeed, the opposite was the case; many times, the lens speed was what made a shot possible.

-- John Kuraoka (john@kuraoka.com), January 30, 2001.

Get the Canon 28-105. It's only $225 at B&H. The optical performance of this lens is excellent and you won't have to worry about SIGnificant MAlfunction or incompatibility later on.

-- Tammi Tran (tammi_tran@hotmail.com), February 01, 2001.