Looking at a lens

[xanis]

I've been using the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my D40 since I got it last December. It's served me well, but I think it's about time for an upgrade.

I was looking through the new photo section on Amazon and I found what I think is a pretty good deal on a Sigma 18-200mm DC lens. I can get it for about $180 shipped. Does that seem like a good deal? Is the quality of the Sigma lens on-par or close to that of it's Nikon counterpart? Is there anything else I should know? Thanks!

Link to the Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18...7U0GZC/ref=pd_sbs_p_14

 

[996GT2]

You might want to read this review:
http://www.cameralabs.com/revi...gma18200mm/page6.shtml

With such a long zoom range, the 18-200 is going to have some distortion if you use it at the widest focal ranges. If you shoot most of your shots at wide angle, then you might want to look at other lenses like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

 

[thegpfury]

It's generally better to get multiple lenses across a range rather than having one lens that does it all.

I have the Tamrom 17-50mm f/2.8 for my Canon, it's incredible the quality difference between that and a lens that covers that much area. Also, it's better for lowlight and portraits.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: thegpfury
It's generally better to get multiple lenses across a range rather than having one lens that does it all.

I have the Tamrom 17-50mm f/2.8 for my Canon, it's incredible the quality difference between that and a lens that covers that much area. Also, it's better for lowlight and portraits.

That makes sense. Now I guess my question is, what SHOULD I be looking for? I was kind of hoping to get a decent lens for $200, maybe less, though I seriously doubt it's possible.

 

[thegpfury]

You can get ok lenses for under 200, but nothing spectacular (with the exception of canon's 50mm f/1.8, but I don't think there's a nikon equivalent)....generally the more you spend, the better the low-light, the faster they let you take shots, and the clearer they are.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: thegpfury
You can get ok lenses for under 200, but nothing spectacular (with the exception of canon's 50mm f/1.8, but I don't think there's a nikon equivalent)....generally the more you spend, the better the low-light, the faster they let you take shots, and the clearer they are.

There is a Nikon equivalent...the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D is very comparable to the Canon lens optically, has better build quality (metal mount), and is available for $100-120. It has an effective focal length of 75mm on your D40.

It doesn't zoom, but because of that it's optical performance is unmatched by zoom lenses at just about any price range. A word of caution, though: the Nikkor will not AF on your D40 because the D40 has no internal AF motor.

If you want a zoom lens, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II is a good choice, but it's around $400 new.

 

[thegpfury]

Ah, right, forgot that the D40's can't autofocus with some nikon lenses.

I've heard that the Tamron 28-7? f/2.8 is pretty good as well if you don't care as much about the wide angle and would rather have the zoom. But again, you're looking at around $400 for a new one.

What are you planning on using this lens for?

 

[xanis]

I was planning on just getting something that I could use for a little bit of everything. The reason I was looking at a lens with telephoto was because I've encountered a few situations lately where 55mm is just not long enough. However, I do mainly shoot wide-angle, so if there's a good, cheap lens that anyone knows of, I'm all ears. I also looked into getting the Nikkor 55-200mm, but the fact that I would have to constantly swap out lenses is what made me interested in the 18-200mm.

 

[thegpfury]

What's the largest photo you're looking at printing?

If it's not much more than a 5x7 or 8x10...you probably could get away with the $200 lens you wanted..

 

[996GT2]

If you mainly shoot wide angle, then the Tamron 17-50 Di II f/2.8 is a good lens with a very fast f/2.8 aperture throughout the entire zoom range. It's between $400 to $450.

A good choice from Sigma is their 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO HSM, at around $450.

Less than that, there aren't really any lenses that are notably better than the Nikkor 18-55 kit lens besides prime lenses like the Nikkor 50mm (but that won't AF on a D40).

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: thegpfury
What's the largest photo you're looking at printing?

If it's not much more than a 5x7 or 8x10...you probably could get away with the $200 lens you wanted..

Most of my material will stay digital, but if I printed, 8x10 would be the max.

 

[thegpfury]

Here is a review of the sigma lens: http://www.ephotozine.com/arti...gma-18-200mm-f35-63-DC

The quality of the images looks decent, it shouldn't be a problem. Is there a camera store nearby where you could try one out?

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: thegpfury
Here is a review of the sigma lens: http://www.ephotozine.com/arti...gma-18-200mm-f35-63-DC

The quality of the images looks decent, it shouldn't be a problem. Is there a camera store nearby where you could try one out?

There's a Ritz about 2 minutes away. I might go on Friday when I'm off and see if they have it for me to try out.

 

[ghostman]

I recognize the temptation of getting one lens that does it all. But you're significantly sacrificing picture quality and performance by doing so. A friend with a Nikon D40 got a very long range lens (Nikon 18-200? 28-200?... I don't remember. I use Canon.) despite my objections. I recommended getting a Tamron F/2.8 lens (either the 17-50 or the 28-75) and fill in the other areas later on, but he refused to get a 3rd party lens. In less than three months, he was complaining about his purchase.

Meanwhile, I have the Tamron 28-75 for my Canon. It's an excellent lens. I have my complaints about it - mainly loud and slower focusing, but it cost me only $300 new (Tamron runs rebates once in a while). The range is excellent for me, since I very rarely go that wide and I much prefer portrait-style photos. I have a kit lens (18-55) for wide angle and the 50 F/1.8 which I never use.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Xanis
I was looking through the new photo section on Amazon and I found what I think is a pretty good deal on a Sigma 18-200mm DC lens. I can get it for about $180 shipped. Does that seem like a good deal? Is the quality of the Sigma lens on-par or close to that of it's Nikon counterpart? Is there anything else I should know? Thanks!

Link to the Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18...7U0GZC/ref=pd_sbs_p_14

This lens does not have a HSM (sigma's equivalent to AS-F) so it will not auto-focus with the D40.

This one will

How well does your 18-55mm kit lens work for you? Are you running into problems taking shots in low light?

55mm is just not long enough

I don't understand why you guys are suggesting a fast lens when he clearly states he needs more reach.

For your price range the best solution would be the 55-200mm VR . Or if thats not enough reach then the next step up would be the 70-300mm, which weighs and costs a bit more than the 55-200mm.

If your worried about changing lenses and need just a little more reach, theres always the 18-70mm and the 18-135mm . And of course theres the 18-200mm VRII which is Nikon's 11X superzoom. Having VR on this entire range and not changing lenses is the main pulling for this lens. But, as mentioned earlier, a two lens solution (18-55 + 55-200VR) would have better image quality and would be much cheaper.

Now don't get me wrong, having a 17-50 F/2.8 zoom lens or a 50mm F/1.8 is a great investment if your looking for low-light shooting (indoors, nighttime), or for creating a wonderful creamy bokeh. But the 2.8 is twice his budget and the 50mm won't auto-focus on the D40.

 

[xanis]

Thanks for the advice/links twistedlogic! After taking a look, I think that 18-135mm is looking like my best bet. I'm still going to go to Ritz on Friday to try out some lenses though just to be sure.

 

[twistedlogic]

The one I linked you to at Amazon is actually sold at Adorama.com.

Its refurbished by Nikon so its not exactly brand new. But it appears to still come with a 5 year warranty.

Here is the same lens but NEW.

The only thing I don't like is this lens lacks VR (vibration reduction), which is very helpful when shooting static objects hand-held. While VR may not be so missed on the wide end, when you start getting toward 135mm you might get some blurry shots if your shutter speed is not fast enough.

Don't let the lack of VR discourage you though. You just have to know the limitations of your ability to shoot hand-held at longer focal lengths.

Good luck with your decision, and have fun shootin!!!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

This lens does not have a HSM (sigma's equivalent to AS-F) so it will not auto-focus with the D40.

This one will

sigma makes an 18-200 with a focus motor for nikon that isn't an hsm. i think that the lens in the OP is that lens.

Originally posted by: 996GT2
There is a Nikon equivalent...the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D is very comparable to the Canon lens optically, has better build quality (metal mount), and is available for $100-120. It has an effective focal length of 75mm on your D40.

'build quality' is a misnomer if your only objection is the plastic mount on the lens. 'build quality' implies that it isn't put together well. that has little to do with the material the mount is made of. because the lens doesn't weigh anything a plastic mount is just fine.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: twistedlogic

This lens does not have a HSM (sigma's equivalent to AS-F) so it will not auto-focus with the D40.

This one will

sigma makes an 18-200 with a focus motor for nikon that isn't an hsm. i think that the lens in the OP is that lens.

The one that has a built-in motor is the second generation Sigma 18-200mm DC.

The one he posted is the first generation. Hence half the price.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: thegpfury
You can get ok lenses for under 200, but nothing spectacular (with the exception of canon's 50mm f/1.8, but I don't think there's a nikon equivalent)....generally the more you spend, the better the low-light, the faster they let you take shots, and the clearer they are.

There is a Nikon equivalent...the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D is very comparable to the Canon lens optically, has better build quality (metal mount), and is available for $100-120. It has an effective focal length of 75mm on your D40.

It doesn't zoom, but because of that it's optical performance is unmatched by zoom lenses at just about any price range. A word of caution, though: the Nikkor will not AF on your D40 because the D40 has no internal AF motor.

If you want a zoom lens, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II is a good choice, but it's around $400 new.

I looked it up a week or two ago and it can be had for $350. Well, I found that then but today it's closer to $370 at Pricegrabber.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Xanis
I was planning on just getting something that I could use for a little bit of everything. The reason I was looking at a lens with telephoto was because I've encountered a few situations lately where 55mm is just not long enough. However, I do mainly shoot wide-angle, so if there's a good, cheap lens that anyone knows of, I'm all ears. I also looked into getting the Nikkor 55-200mm, but the fact that I would have to constantly swap out lenses is what made me interested in the 18-200mm.

I've seen posts declaring that the Nikkor 18-80mm (?) lens is pretty good. I don't know what it would cost you. No one lens does it all, but it might come close for you a lot of the time (and of course one of those Tamron lenses). It's probably a lot better than the Nikkor 55-200mm, which I'd think won't produce very sharp shots unless stopped down to f8, at least near 200mm.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I have the Sigma 18-200mm OS for my Canon. Picture sharpness can't compare to my primes or good quality zooms, but it's lightweight and convenient, so I use it for hiking and backpacking. That's pretty much it. Most of the time I just use my 17-50mm. The quality is passable though. It needs to be stopped down to f/9 or so for maximum sharpness. I don't like it at all wide open.

 

[xanis]

So basically from what everyone is saying, sticking with my 18-55mm or getting something similar would be my best bet?

 

[996GT2]

Well, if you can accept the compromises that come with a long-zoom range lens, then getting the 18-200 is a fine decision. Just be aware that it'll produce more distortion and chromatic aberration at the widest focal lengths compared to a lens with a shorter focal length...say, a 17-50mm.

 

[Muse]

You've probably already considered this but it seems to me it should be on your list of considerations. I read about all of the reviews here today:

Amazon: Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens (Black)

It's the same price as that Sigma in your OP. It's nearly the same weight as your 18-55mm. The newer VR version is $50 more, at least at Amazon.

Edit: The biggest knock on this ~$170 lens based on the scores of reviews I read this morning is the slowness of the auto focus. I read and read hoping that someone would give an indication of just how slow it is. IOW, 1/2 second, 1/3 second, 3 seconds? What exactly is the experience that these people are complaining about in terms of slow auto focus? Can people speak to that?