18 -200 Lens Chioce for Nikon

P

pablob

Suspended / Banned
Messages
764
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hi there,

I currently own the Sigma DC Version (F3.5 - 6.6) for my D300 and I'm wondering If I'd gain anything in switching to the Nikon 18 - 200 Vr DX Lens (F3.5 - 5.6).

The Nikon is roughly twice the price - does it offer twice the benefits?

Has anyone used both?

Discuss?!
 
Personally I would invest in some other lenses first, do you only have the 18-200?

If so then maybe get a 50mm 1.8, 105 or 150mm 2.8 macro, 10-20mm wide as any of these would open up new types of photography. Any lens that covers a very wide range is always going to have to make compromises and the nikon 18-200 is no exception (it is a very good all-in-one lens though if you really can't carry around more than one).
 
Good Point.

I own the following :-

1. Sigma 10 - 20 mm
2. Nikon 50mm
3. Nikon 70 - 300 mm Vr
4. and off course the Sigma 18 - 200mm

So was just thinking of a better lens in the 18 - 70 range. Maybe I should be looking there rather then getting a straight replacement for the Sigma 18 -200?

Open to suggestions :)
 
I have one of the 18-200vr lenses for sale at the minute but...... My advice to you would be to keep your existing lens (if you are getting good results) and build up a range of f2.8 glass to cover that range.:rules: I'm trying to do that at this minute too, expensive though.:lol:
BTW the Nikon lens is a cracker.......

David.
 
pablob,

A slight digression from the original question (sorry).

If you get into thinking of buying the Sigma 10-20 (one of the suggested options from risky1981's post); I have one that I may be putting up for sale now that I am no longer using DX format bodies.
 
Ops, ignore my previous post .. didn't update the thread and should have done so too.

Sorry :)
 
Look at the Nikon 18-135 you wont beat it on sharpeness, check out some reviews
 
What sort of pictures do you like to take?

As gwocni says, you could be better to slowly add 2.8 lenses either the 17-55 or 70-200 would be a very good shout (although you will need to save quite a bit for the latter).

If you just have an urge to spend a bit of cash to improve you pictures then maybe a decent tripod or invest in a starter filter kit. You could see better results than spending £2-300 on a lens.
 
Hi there,

Have a nice Manfrotto Tripod and as I'm still an amateur I haven't really investigated filters yet (aside from lobbing uv ones on my lens to afford some protection!).

I'm still at the stage where I haven't got myself into one particular Genre yet, my first proper try out was in Thailand which was mainly landscapes/scenes/animals but tonight for example I'm going to jump onto a train and grab some pics from around where I work in the City (of London).

Think I'll stick with what i've got for now and see where I end up in the future!
 
Sounds sensible mate, a Lee filter starter kit would be a good choice if you think you would get some use from them (I use mine a lot for landscape photography). Otherwise keep saving for one of the pro lenses, you won't regret it!
 
The lenes you've already got are a duplicate to mine except I've got the 18-55 VR as well. I just sold my Nikon 18-200 as I wasn't using it.

Personally I'd get rid of the 18-200mm and get a f2.8 walk around lens in the 18-50mm range, such as the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamrom 17-50 2.8.

Then you'll have a good focal range covered with fairly decent glass:

Sigma 10-20
Sigma 18-50 2.8 (or similar)
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 50mm 1.8 (I presume) for low light stuff.
 
davekiddle said:
The lenes you've already got are a duplicate to mine except I've got the 18-55 VR as well. I just sold my Nikon 18-200 as I wasn't using it.

Personally I'd get rid of the 18-200mm and get a f2.8 walk around lens in the 18-50mm range, such as the Sigma 18-50 2.8 or the Tamrom 17-50 2.8.

Then you'll have a good focal range covered with fairly decent glass:

Sigma 10-20
Sigma 18-50 2.8 (or similar)
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 50mm 1.8 (I presume) for low light stuff.
Click to expand...

[S1]Agree[/S1]

Exactly as I've just done; sold my 18-200 and bought Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8. :D
 
pablob,

You will find a number of threads here about the Tamron 17-50/2.8; and almost every one will tell you that this is a fantastic lens, especially for the price and weight. It is a bargain, considering all the +ve it has to offer. If you want to start off with an f2.8 zoom lens, this is an outstanding place to start, unless you want to fork out for the more expensive Nikon 17-55/2.8 (at 3x the price, if not a bit more).

As for the 50-150/2.8; it's said to be sharp, but the thing that makes this lens most appealing is its weight. It is a very small and light zoom lens that gets you up to 150mm at f2.8; but I wonder - if weight is not an issue - if you are not better off going with its bigger sibling (the 70-200/2.8) which is only slightly more expensive.

With these two combinations you will get a wonderful range of fast zooms.
 
All this talk of 2.8 has got me pining after my delivery again.........going to chase this morning......
 
as said ealrier try and use a couple of lenses for the range, i use Nikon 17-55, Sigma 70-200 and dont really miss the little bit in the middle
 
Oh yes, one more thing on the subject of 2.8 .. it gets very addictive, and costly too; but the fun outweighs the cost, BIG time.

Soon you will start to look at even faster glass, and wondering how you will finance that :p
 
Excellent, just don't let Mrs. pablob know how much you're getting ;)
 
Having had a think and a bit of a research Think I'm going to try and grab the Tamron 17 -50 F2.8 if I can find a good example!

Think I might then chuck in my Sigma 18 - 200 and try for the Sigma 50 - 150 F2.8. Hopefully I've then got a couple of fast lenses with ok reach, A nice Nikon 50mm Prime, A Half decent zoom with the Nikon vr 70 - 300mm and hopefully Santa will bring me the Sigma 150mm Macro! All bases covered then for now and can save up for a fast telezoom!

Does that sound like a plan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top