Having just taken delivery of my D200 (not really had a chance to play with it yet), i'm now selling my D40 with kit lens and 55-200 (non VR).
I want to get some better quality glass and a flash over the next few months and money will be tightish (the wife is giving up work
)....
Buying second hand will definatley be an option and i have decided that i will get a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 as the shorter option after reading several good reviews.
I cannot make my mind up if i should get the Nikkor 55-200 with VR or the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 as the longer lens. Would the VR on the 55-200 make it a viable option when shooting in lower light (such as in a church) or would i be better spending a bit more and getting the Sigma?
It would also be used for wildlife were i guess the extra 50mm of the nikkor would be better but i can always add a tele convertor to the Sigma at a later stage? (anyone here doing that?)
Be interested to hear the views of owners on here with the low light thing.
I want to get some better quality glass and a flash over the next few months and money will be tightish (the wife is giving up work
)....Buying second hand will definatley be an option and i have decided that i will get a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 as the shorter option after reading several good reviews.
I cannot make my mind up if i should get the Nikkor 55-200 with VR or the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 as the longer lens. Would the VR on the 55-200 make it a viable option when shooting in lower light (such as in a church) or would i be better spending a bit more and getting the Sigma?
It would also be used for wildlife were i guess the extra 50mm of the nikkor would be better but i can always add a tele convertor to the Sigma at a later stage? (anyone here doing that?)
Be interested to hear the views of owners on here with the low light thing.
