Alright, my last lens thread (I hope)

[xanis]

I made this thread a while back asking for opinions and advice on some lenses. After doing a bit of research and and scraping together some money, I have my choices narrowed down to 3 lenses:

Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC HSM ($141.50)
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX ($169.47)
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR ($209.32)

I'll be ordering from Amazon because of the good prices and free two-day shipping courtesy of an Amazon Prime trial.

At this point, I have two questions: One, should I go with Sigma or Nikon, and two, if I go with Nikon, should I spend the extra $40 and get VR?

I appreciate the patience and the help.

merged the two threads together that were nearly identical -DrPizza

 

[jpeyton]

Yes, get the VR 55-200mm Nikon. It's better built than the non-VR version, and the VR comes in very handy at telephoto focal lengths.

 

[randomlinh]

from that group, VR by a long shot. basically what jpeyton said.

 

[xanis]

If any of you recall, I made a thread a while back asking for some lens advice. Now, after a lot of research and deliberation, I've narrowed my choices down to two lenses:

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR ($209)
Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Refurbished ($220)

Of those two, which would you recommend? At this point I'm leaning towards the 18-135mm, but the extra reach, cheaper price and VR are drawing me in to the 55-200. Also, the 55-200 is new, whereas the 18-135 is refurbished. Basically I just want some telephoto capability. There have been some occasions recently when I've really wished I could reach further than 55mm and I think it's time to add another lens to my D40.

Ideally, though, I would really like to get a wide-angle lens, but the prices are just too high for me at the moment. If anyone can find me a reasonably priced ($250 or less) wide-angle lens, that would be awesome. If not though, I'm just going to get a telephoto.

And as always, if you have any other final suggestions or advice for me this would be the time and place. I'm planning to order whatever I'm getting in the next week or so it'll hopefully get in before I leave for school.

 

[Kirby64]

Not basing this off quality.. as I can't comment on Nikon lenses.. but I'd go with the 55-200. You already have a lens that reaches from 18-55 I assume, so why cover that same area again? If you get the 18-135 you'll be kicking yourself later when you want more reach. The VR also will be incredibly helpful for trying to take pictures indoors or in otherwise poor lighting conditions.

The 18-135 sound like it's basically trying to be a lens that is supposed to cover 'everything.' This likely means you're going to sacrifice some quality of the lens to get the large amount of flexibility.

As for the wide angle, you're basically going to have to either spend a fortune, or find an incredible deal. I have a Sigma 10-20mm. It works great, takes beautiful pictures, but it still cost me $350. (which I consider a steal) I highly doubt you're going to find a wide angle lens under $250.

Just my 2 cents

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: Kirby64
Not basing this off quality.. as I can't comment on Nikon lenses.. but I'd go with the 55-200. You already have a lens that reaches from 18-55 I assume, so why cover that same area again? If you get the 18-135 you'll be kicking yourself later when you want more reach. The VR also will be incredibly helpful for trying to take pictures indoors or in otherwise poor lighting conditions.

The 18-135 sound like it's basically trying to be a lens that is supposed to cover 'everything.' This likely means you're going to sacrifice some quality of the lens to get the large amount of flexibility.

As for the wide angle, you're basically going to have to either spend a fortune, or find an incredibly deal. I have a Sigma 10-20mm. It works great, takes beautiful pictures, but it still cost me $350. (which I consider a steal) I highly doubt you're going to find a wide angle lens under $250.

Just my 2 cents

Thanks. I'll probably wind up holding off on the wide angle until some time down the road when I have more money. For now though, the 55-200mm is starting to look kind of good.

 

[Funyuns101]

those are awfully big words to say "last lens"
I have a used Sigma 18-125 that works as a light all-around travel lens, but my Pentax has in-body VR (SR, whatever it's called across systems).
I may end up selling it when I'm able to afford nicer lenses that overlap the range though.

I can't comment those specific lenses as I'm not a Nikon guy, but I agree w/Kirby though - the 55-200 might make more sense for your situation.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Kirby64
Not basing this off quality.. as I can't comment on Nikon lenses.. but I'd go with the 55-200. You already have a lens that reaches from 18-55 I assume, so why cover that same area again? If you get the 18-135 you'll be kicking yourself later when you want more reach. The VR also will be incredibly helpful for trying to take pictures indoors or in otherwise poor lighting conditions.

The 18-135 sound like it's basically trying to be a lens that is supposed to cover 'everything.' This likely means you're going to sacrifice some quality of the lens to get the large amount of flexibility.

As for the wide angle, you're basically going to have to either spend a fortune, or find an incredible deal. I have a Sigma 10-20mm. It works great, takes beautiful pictures, but it still cost me $350. (which I consider a steal) I highly doubt you're going to find a wide angle lens under $250.

Just my 2 cents

My thoughts exactly.

The 55-200mm VR is the telephoto sibling of your existing 18-55mm lens.

No matter what you do, keep the 18-55mm lens. Its small size and light weight make it the perfect lens to leave on the camera at all times for snapshots.

 

[soydios]

Another vote for the 55-200mm VR.