Which lens?

C

castyanya

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Edit My Images
No
I'm an enthusiastic amateur on a real tight budget and this is my first post here.
I bought a Nikon D40 a couple of years ago as it was all I could afford. I also have a Tamron AF 80-200 zoom. This only works as manual focus on the D40 and I'm a bit fed up with it and want to upgrade to something that will autofocus. I also find myself continually swapping between my standard 18-55mm nikon lens and the zoom.
So... in an ideal world i'd get an 18-200 nikkor lens. However that's way beyond what i can afford.
So my compromise at around £160 is either:
Nikkor 18-135mm refurbished or
Tamron (or Sigma) 18-200 (Tamron AF18-200mm F3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD)

I do use my current setup on its maximum 200mm setting a fair bit

For an enthusiastic amateur wanting a setup for all round use, would you go for the Tamron (compromising on quality) or the Nikkor (compromising on focal length but doing more cropping on the computer to effectively "zoom in")
 
What about the Tamron 18-250? I've had one of these on a Pentax and it was Ok for a lens of that length. I have seen it second hand for about £150.
 
I had exactly the same dilemma, I found it a bind keep changing the 18-55 to a 50-200 on my D50 so I sold the latter and bought a Nikon 18-135 which I find excellent and now rarely have to take it off. I did then however get a 70-300 for the longer reach but if £150ish is all you can justify( afford?) then I dont think you will be unhappy with the 18-135.
 
madmardle said:
I had exactly the same dilemma, I found it a bind keep changing the 18-55 to a 50-200 on my D50 so I sold the latter and bought a Nikon 18-135 which I find excellent and now rarely have to take it off. I did then however get a 70-300 for the longer reach but if £150ish is all you can justify( afford?) then I dont think you will be unhappy with the 18-135.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. If you didn't have the 70-300 now, would you be frustrated at not having the longer zoom?
 
I'd buy the 18-105 VR instead of the 18-135 a better lens and the extra 30mm in the long end is not that significant, if 105 is not long enough chances are 135 won't be much better either.

If you do need the longer end though how about a 55-200? gives you a bit more on the wide end while having VR and AF.

Both of the above lenses are well within budget s/h.
 
castyanya said:
Thanks for that. If you didn't have the 70-300 now, would you be frustrated at not having the longer zoom?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is an issue, like Vasilis says about not being much difference from 105 to 135,when I had my 55-200 I zoomed back to see what it would be like at 135 and couldn't see much difference. I will admit though that the 300mm does obviously make a big difference but that is another story, I thought you were only asking about a "walkabout lens" ie. trying to avoid changing lenses. You're not going to get 300mm without changing.
 
Ok I think I'm going for the nikor 18-135.
I think the 18-105 would just be abit too short compared to the 200 I'm used to, although the VR with the 18-105 would be nice!
Can't access the classifieds on this forum as I'm too new so looks like it might have to be ebay!
 
I have a 18-135 which came with my D80 and I hardly use it. I am not happy with it compare to the 55-200.

Sorry just my thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top