Sigma Lenses

[logi]

I'm looking to get a new lens for my d90. the 18-200mm to be exact.

I've read reviews on the 18-200mm nikon mount from sigma and it seems to be a mix from users but a positive one from sites.

Its about a 200$ difference from the nikon branded one and the sigma one.
I was wondering if anyone has any experiences with the Sigma lenses? are there any issues that i should know or should i just pay the extra 200ish for the nikon branded one?


Thanks

[quazimoto]

Some of the sigma lenses are great and better than their Nikon counterparts and others are well not so hot. With the 18-200 specifically I'd recommend sticking to the Nikon version. I've had success with some Sigma lenses and other situations the autofocus can be much slower, less accurate, etc. It's all on a lens by lens basis though.

With the 18-200 however I'd say go Nikon all the way. The main success I've had with Sigma is with their primes and even then autofocus tends to hunt and be less accurate.

[Mitsu3000gt]

If you are specifically interested in the 18-200, the Nikon version is definitely better than the Sigma version. It's a stop faster on the wide end, faster AF, and it's built better. IMO it's $200 better.

Sigma has a few "gems" but in general, they are cheaper for a reason. Typically they have higher sample variation, higher failure rates, not as sharp wide open, etc. Again, there are exceptions, but typically the Nikon version of the lens will be better than the Sigma equivalent (and more expensive as a result).

The 18-200 is a do everything lens that doesn't excel at any one thing other than convenience, so I would also make sure it's definitely what you want before buying one as well.

[logi]

Thanks guys.

yea i wasnt sure if this would be the route to go. i've been debating on either getting the 55-200mm as a zoom
and keeping the kit lens it comes with. but i was also thinking of getting the 50mm as well so i thought that wouldnt be a good choice as well.

do you guys have any suggestions?
i wanted to get a zoom of some sort..not looking at going anywhere past the 200mm mark as of now

[Xtrema]

How often do you need zoom? Did you get the 18-55 kit lens with your D90?

I have the 18-105 as primary lens and 70-300 as zoom. The zoom lens is almost never used and most of the time I find 105 to be enough to worry about changing lens for extra range.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by logi
Thanks guys.

yea i wasnt sure if this would be the route to go. i've been debating on either getting the 55-200mm as a zoom
and keeping the kit lens it comes with. but i was also thinking of getting the 50mm as well so i thought that wouldnt be a good choice as well.

do you guys have any suggestions?
i wanted to get a zoom of some sort..not looking at going anywhere past the 200mm mark as of now

What lens do you have now, the 18-105VR kit lens?

If I were you I'd get the 70-300VR and the 50/1.8. Both lenses combined are still cheaper than the 18-200VR and are better throughout their shared focal lengths. IMO the 70-300VR is one of the best bang for the buck lenses from any manufacturer.

You might also consider the 35/1.8 but it is $100 more than the 50/1.8. Either way it's still cheaper than the 18-200VR.

Basically you would be trading the convenience of a one lens solution for superior image quality, better wide aperture/low light shooting capability, and more zoom coverage.

Most people I know with the 18-200VR simply use it as a travel lens if they just want to take some casual snaps while one vacation with the family. It is an ideal lens for that, but not much else IMO.

[logi]

right now i have the 18-55.

i was thinking of getting rid of the 18-55 and replacing it with the 50mm and the a zoom lens of some range.

when i spoke to a friend he said he uses the 18-200 and then a 50mm so i decided to take a look at going that route.

i'm not quite sure how much zoom i would actually be using, i thought of it more as a in case i did then it would be there kind of thing.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by logi
right now i have the 18-55.

i was thinking of getting rid of the 18-55 and replacing it with the 50mm and the a zoom lens of some range.

when i spoke to a friend he said he uses the 18-200 and then a 50mm so i decided to take a look at going that route.

i'm not quite sure how much zoom i would actually be using, i thought of it more as a in case i did then it would be there kind of thing.

What kinds of things do you typically take pictures of, or hope to take pictures of in the future? Maybe you don't need much reach and would be better served with quality glass covering a smaller range.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
If I were you I'd get the 70-300VR and the 50/1.8. Both lenses combined are still cheaper than the 18-200VR and are better throughout their shared focal lengths. IMO the 70-300VR is one of the best bang for the buck lenses from any manufacturer.

Exactly my combo with my D90 + a Tokina 11-17 f/2.8.

Seems like the only time I need zoom is when I travel and I'm stuck on a fixed point, either on a bus, cruise or building.

My cousin got a Tamron 18-270 strictly for his travels. While it's convenient, I don't really like the lens movement or AF speed.

[Gibson]

I think I've said this before a few times, but I genuinely hate using my Nikon 18-200 VR. It isn't very well built, it's not sharp, the autofocus squeaks and the lens creep is horrid. Leave it at 18mm, sling it on your shoulder, forget about it for a while until you hit it on something and find that it's extended itself to 200mm. I also had to send mine into servicing because it forgot how to infinity focus, even on manual.

That being said, they do have the VR2 which probably fixed or improved on a few of these things.

For most people though, I'd imagine it would do just fine in everyday scenarios.

[logi]

most of the pictures now are people and scenery and buildings and such.

[blitz]

I had a first version Nikon 18-200mm when I had my D80. Not a bad lens in reality. Given that it's a 3.5-5.6 don't expect any meaningful depth of field or bokeh. As people have said, it's not particularly good at anything except being convenient.

Pick up a 55-200mm VR from Adorama (they’re like $130 or something stupid like that) and a 50 or 35mm prime. Cheap and they’ll let you figure out what you need long term.

Perfect midrange DX lens is the 17-55mm 2.8 IMO. Get one used for around $850, they’re built like tank so not many worries buying used.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by logi
most of the pictures now are people and scenery and buildings and such.

With that, I would recommend something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC or the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. A lot of people seem to think the older non-stabilized versions of these lenses were sharper, and you could probably find a used one for a great deal. If you go this route, my only advice is to buy from somewhere with a return policy as sample variation is more common with the 3rd party lenses.

You could also look for a used Nikon 17-55/2.8 for around $850 as mentioned, not much different than the 18-200 price tag but it's pro grade glass with a constant f2.8 aperture. The difference between this lens and the 3rd party competition is the Nikon lens is built much better, is fully weather/dust sealed, focuses faster, and is marginally sharper at f2.8. Image quality wise the difference is quite small if you have a good copy of one of the 3rd party lenses.

Or, you could stick with your 18-55 kit lens, it's a surprisingly good little lens, especially the VR version. You could pick up a good cheap flash (Nikon SB-600) for people shots or whatever else and you would be good to go for a while. Add a 50/1.8 or 35/1.8 if you want for not much more and you would have a fast, sharp lens at your disposal as well.

I would start there, and if you find yourself needing more reach look at the 55-200VR and 70-300VR. If you do end up buying one of these, it will still complement whatever you choose to do on the wide end so you won't have wasted any money.

[logi]

thanks mitsu for your insight

that was what i originally had in mind by keeping the 18-55 and then getting a 50 or a 35 and a flash and working from there

a friend had suggested to get the 18-200 and ditch the 18-55 and get a 50, so i wanted to get some feedback from users

[Penis McNickels]

Originally posted by blitz
Perfect midrange DX lens is the 17-55mm 2.8 IMO. Get one used for around $850, they’re built like tank so not many worries buying used.

I've been keeping my eyes open for a used one on kijiji or craigslist, but they don't come by too often.

Any other places one can look for used lenses?