Nikon lens recommendation: 18 - 50ish range

[Jeeebus]

I'll be picking up the D5000 shortly (no internal AF motor), and am likely also picking up the Nikon 70-300. I thus need something to occupy the lower end of the range.

General purpose stuff... outdoors, pets, weddings, my baby, etc.

I've considered the 18-200 long and hard, but I think I'd rather have the flexibility of a larger aperture at the lower end, and I might need the extra length at the high end for outdoors stuff.

Budget is, to put a random number, lets say around $400ish.

So what I'm really looking at is the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 HSM and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

Can't really make up my mind between either, though the Sigma I can pick up for about $360, which is probably about $40 less than the Tamron.

Neither of these has any vibration reduction, but I'm not sure that really helps in this focal range. Are these going to be better choices that a standard 18-55 kit lens?

I guess I was also looking at the Nikon 16-85, which has the benefit of VR and completing the range with the 70-300, but then I sacrifice the larger aperture, which I'd probably miss indoors.

So confused.

 

[ghostman]

I can't really help much since I don't own a Nikon or any of those lenses, but I do own the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for Canon and I hear it is similar to the its little brother. This range fits me better, even on a crop body, because I can add a super wide (10-22) and a telephoto (70-200) to either end to extend the range. The more common 18-55mm range would cause overlaps with the superwide and gaps with the telephoto.

As for the lens itself, it's an amazingly sharp lens with an extremely low price. Even at the longer 28-75mm range, I've never really felt IS was necessary, but I'm sure it would help slightly in darker environments where I need a longer shutter. The AF motor is not nearly as quiet, smooth, accurate or fast as Canon's USM AF and probably Sigma's HSM. This might be important if your subjects are moving very quickly, but for most occasions, it's not much of a limitation. In this range, the choice between Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 was obvious for me - the Sigma is at least $100 more expensive for the non-HSM version and over $500 more expensive for the HSM version. In the 18-50mm range, the Sigma sounds like it may be a better value given its lower price and HSM focus.

 

[jpeyton]

I like the Tamron, although the 18-55VR is no slouch either.

 

[Munky]

Another idea would be to pick up the 35mm 1.8 AF-S prime for low light indoor photos, and save the money towards a wide angle zoom. How much low light photography do you plan on doing? In good lighting you'll be shooting closer to f8 anyways, so the 2.8 zooms aren't necessarily the best choice all around.

 

[Jeeebus]

Originally posted by: munky
Another idea would be to pick up the 35mm 1.8 AF-S prime for low light indoor photos, and save the money towards a wide angle zoom. How much low light photography do you plan on doing? In good lighting you'll be shooting closer to f8 anyways, so the 2.8 zooms aren't necessarily the best choice all around.

ya I've considered picking up the 35mm. Might add it to the arsenal later down the road.

Honestly, no idea on what I will end up doing low light vs out in the sun.

Was also looking at the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM... little wider, captures full range out to 70 (not that I'd really miss the 50-70 that much) and is about $50 cheaper than the 2.8 sigma.

Again, no image stabilization though.

 

[tdawg]

A used Nikon 18-70 can be had for under $200 and is a sharp lens. If you're seriously considering the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5, I'd run away from that and get the Nikon. If you need a fixed f/2.8, then you probably want to go with either the two you originally called out.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

You will be best served by the Nikon 18-55mm and a 35mm 1.8 AF-S.

They are both very sharp, with the 35mm reportedly EXTREMELY sharp. You really cant go wrong. I would get the 18-55 used honestly. You can get one for $70-150 used.

PS the main reason I like the 18-55 is because it has great flare control and it has fairly little distortion compared to "longer" zooms.

 

[soydios]

If the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 has an in-lens focusing motor which allows it to work with the D5000, then I would get that over any of the other lenses discussed thus far.

If you find yourself wanting to travel even smaller and lighter, and to learn the joys and challenges of shooting with a prime, then later buy an AF-s 35mm f/1.8G DX.

 

[imported_Irse]

I've heard good and bad about the Tamron 17-50. If I remember correctly, seems like the ones made in Japan have better QC than the ones made in Taiwan/China. F2.8 is good but for me, I like the VR of the 16-85. Wouldn't see much use for it on the shorter end but useful on the longer end.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Irse
I've heard good and bad about the Tamron 17-50. If I remember correctly, seems like the ones made in Japan have better QC than the ones made in Taiwan/China. F2.8 is good but for me, I like the VR of the 16-85. Wouldn't see much use for it on the shorter end but useful on the longer end.

The QC argument doesn't really hold water, since tons of excellent Nikon optics are made in China/Thailand/etc. QC has more to do with the company and their factory. Since Nikon develops the cameras, the internal metering and focusing systems, etc., they are at a huge advantage when designing lenses. Tamron/Sigma/Tokina have to reverse engineer most of what they know. As companies, third-party lens manufacturers tend to be jack-of-all-trades, and masters-of-none.

That said, some third-party lenses are true gems, and offer similar performance to their Nikon counterparts for 50% less money. Sigma macro lenses are a good example. Tamron makes great zoom lenses. Tokina has some very unique optics that Nikon doesn't have an equivalent for (like their 11-16/2.8). But I wouldn't buy a third-party lens before testing it first.

 

[imported_Irse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Irse
I've heard good and bad about the Tamron 17-50. If I remember correctly, seems like the ones made in Japan have better QC than the ones made in Taiwan/China. F2.8 is good but for me, I like the VR of the 16-85. Wouldn't see much use for it on the shorter end but useful on the longer end.

The QC argument doesn't really hold water, since tons of excellent Nikon optics are made in China/Thailand/etc. QC has more to do with the company and their factory. Since Nikon develops the cameras, the internal metering and focusing systems, etc., they are at a huge advantage when designing lenses. Tamron/Sigma/Tokina have to reverse engineer most of what they know. As companies, third-party lens manufacturers tend to be jack-of-all-trades, and masters-of-none.

That said, some third-party lenses are true gems, and offer similar performance to their Nikon counterparts for 50% less money. Sigma macro lenses are a good example. Tamron makes great zoom lenses. Tokina has some very unique optics that Nikon doesn't have an equivalent for (like their 11-16/2.8). But I wouldn't buy a third-party lens before testing it first.

I was specifically stating Tamron, not Nikon or any other brand. And that particular lens.