Lenses

Sigma 28-70 f/2.8D

This is a pretty good lens. I bought it with the assumption that I'd replace it with the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 when I could afford it, but I was satisfied enough with the quality that I've not bothered to yet. It's about a $300 lens, and worth it. It's fast, sharp, and high constrast. The color is pretty good too. I will probably replace it with the $600 Nikkor someday, but not today. It's disadvantages are that it's somewhat big and bulky, and takes 72mm filters. The Nikkors I have use 62mm or 52mm filters, and it would be nice to only use one size filter. The other drawback is that it's really optimised for AF and auto exposure operation. The aperature ring is a little hard to get to behind all the bulk of the lens.

Nikkor 75-300 f/4.5-5.6AF

This is a truly amazing lens. It's a little slow, but it's so sharp and contrasty, and the colors are so good it's well worth it. I figured I'd be using it outdoors when it's sunny, so the slow speed wouldn't matter. I was right. It's great for candids on the street or for sports events durring the day. I rented a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 to do a comparison, and they're damn close. This lens used to cost about $400 greymarket from B&H before it was discontinued, and it's worth every penny. fantastic lens. If you can find one used, get it.

check out what Moose Peterson has to say about it.

Nikkor 105 f/2.8AF micro

This lens is pretty neat. it will focus down to about 12", which gives you a 1:1 reproduction ratio. You don't really realize what a 1:1 ratio means until you can only barely get both corners of someone's eye in the frame at the same time. I bought this lens for it's micro capability and for portrait work (for when I start doing that). The 105mm is a good length, and the big aperature (2.8) will give me a small depth of field in a way that the 75-300 won't.
One drawback is that the f/2.8 pushes out to about f/5 when focusing in close. Not close like 3 feet, but close like 18 inches. Another drawback is that the depth of field is very small. At f/64 the depth of field is about a half an inch or less, at f/5 it's something like a 1/16". It requires a tripod, a flat subject, and patience, or a but-load of light and a very steady hand.

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8AF

This is a spiffy lens! This thing has a huge depth of field, and and a huge angle of view. At f/5.6 it will cover from infinity to 5 feet, and at f/22 it will cover from infinity to about 2.2 feet. The angle of view is big enough that you have to worry about taking a picture of your own feet. corner to corner it's about 94°, which means you can get all of someone standing up in the frame at less than 3 feet.

Having used this lens on several trips, I think it's my favorite lens. I love being able to get everything in the frame in focus. It's great for vistas and indoor shots. Also, with a focal length of 20mm, I can easily hand hold pictures at 1/30 second, with some thought, at 1/15, and with some bracing I can do 1/8. when you can hand hold 1/15, and the aperatture is f/2.8, you don't need a lot of light. This is the functional equivalent of a 50mm f/1.1 in terms of hand-holdability.

You have to be careful about the angle you hold the camera, because if it's not flat with respect to any paralell lines, they will converge or diverge. It's not quite a fish-eye, straight lines stay straight, they just don't stay paralell.

The difference between 20mm and 300mm.