I'm about to buy 24mm and 135mm but i cannot decide between more expensive lens, nikon, or cheaper one like vivitar or sigma. Is it make a big different between those lenes? And which of cheaper lens is better?(in your personal opinion) thank you

-- ik (ik_np@yahoo.com), February 19, 2002

Answers

They are both good brands. Whether they are the equal of the Nikon lens depends on which after-market lens and which Nikon lens. Beyond that, the Nikon lens will have the better build quality to stand up to continuous use and abuse. Sigma builds one zoom lens for Leica, so they can't be too bad. Vivitar has a good reputation.

But before you make a final decision, also check out Tamron and Tokina. In my mind, they are a bit better than the two you mention. But again, you almost have to go on a lens-for-lens basis.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 19, 2002.

Although a couple of the cheapest Nikon lenses are arguably no better than Sigma, majority of Nikon lenses are amongst the best money can buy. With a few exceptions, Sigma lenses are not up to the optical standard or the built-quality of comparable Nikon lenses. However, Sigma lenses are still more han good enough for most photographic work. Vivitar lenses are generally less well regarded than Sigma. A few are comparable to Sigma, but most distinctly less well performing than comparable Sigmas.

-- Chuck (chuckfan_@hotmail.com), February 20, 2002.

Vivitar don't make their own lenses. They only re-badge other lenses, mainly from Sigma, Tokina and Cosina, so in some cases the Vivitar product will be exactly the same as its original Sigma sibling.
I have a manual focus Nikkor 24mm f/2.8, and a Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8, and there's virtually no difference in the image quality from the two. I expect the Nikkor will still be going strong long after the Sigma has fallen to bits, though.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), February 20, 2002.

Really depends on your budget here, if you are looking for a cheap lens, maybe a prime lens like a Nikon 50/f1.8 be the best of the bunch, sharp and handle low light well.

If for a cheap zoom, really should see short range zoom like 28-70, 28-105, f3.5-4.5 or f3.5-5.6, they are much better than the expensive 28-300 f4-5.6.

I've played around with Tokina 28-105 f3.5-4.5, nice metal construction but dark corners and flare problem. Tamron 28-80 f4-5.6, too platic but good color reproduction and contrast, better than Tokina. But they just can't beat the cheap 28 f2.8, either a Tokina, Sigma (I've tried them both).

-- dolcetto (dolcetto@sinatown.com), May 14, 2002.