BT ate my DSL

At precisely 8pm tonight, the DSL dropped out, and has stayed that way. According to the diagnostic I have available at my end, this is because the line is looped back to us. Wierd. Sounds like something fucked up in the exchange :(

(Am currently "borrowing" some random neighbours wireless network connection, briefly)

Many photos scanned tonight.
I took my last roll of film into a pro lab to see if it made a noticeable difference. The prints I received back today are absolutely excellent, but I don't know if this is due to processing differences, or just particularly good film stock, or my own skills/luck in taking them (yeah, right). Either way, I am quite happy with them. They'll be uploaded soon (I hope).

Sigma lenses - any opinions?

(Background info: I have a Nikon FE SLR, and three Nikkor lenses (24, 50, 135 mm).)

When I go somewhere to take pictures for their own sake, I don't mind carrying a big camera bag full of lenses, filters, flashes and a tripod. It's less convenient when I just want to take a camera along somewhere on the off-chance that I might see something interesting. I can get away without needing the tripod, filters, flash, and so forth, but

I'm idly contemplating getting a zoom lens, for the convenience factor. The Zoom-Nikkor 24-85 mm appeals to me a lot, and probably would be almost comparable to the quality of my 24 and 50 mm lenses. However it costs just under 500 quid, so that's out of the question!

Sigma make a similar lens, and it costs (just) under a hundred pounds. They also make a 'high quality' version of the same lens, for double that price. Now although I'd like a zoom lens, the convenience isn't worth half a grand to me. It isn't even worth half of half a grand. So my question is, just how good (or rather, how not bad) is the entry-level Sigma zoom going to be?

I've read some reviews around the web, and they're very mixed - Some people seem to think it's the bees knees, but there are always people who'll say that about whatever they just bought. (Self justification?). There are some people who say it's shite and is worthless, but there are always people who'll say that because of their beliefs about the newer/moreExpensive piece of kit they just bought to replace the reviewed item..

Then there are some reviews that seem reasonably objective, and mention that the lens isn't totally sharp when wide-open at 24-35mm, and has slight light roll-off towards and corners and some barrel distortion at 24mm.  There's no comparison given with other lenses though, so I can't compare it to any known scale.

Alright, so the lens isn't going to be as good as the Nikkors - fair enough, really. I just want this zoom for times when I only want to carry the camera, and not need to carry several kilos of glass in a backpack or camera bag, and I'll accept minor loss of sharpness and speed. (ie. needing to take wide-angle photos at F5.6 or greater).

The question is, how much worse is it? Is it going to be so bad that I'm never going to want to use it, even for casual snaps, or is it a case of barely-noticeable differences? (at say, 7x5" or 8x6" size prints)

I know a few of you have third-party lenses on your cameras, so I wondered what you thought of them? I remember seeing at least one Sigma lens around, but I don't recall if you had the base-level one, or their deluxe model.

Opinions, anyone?

[Edit: I did find this: Gallery of pictures taken with the lens I am considering.]