I'm going to replace my D40 kit lens (18-55mm non-VR) with a slightly longer lens with optical stabilization. I'll be trading my kit lens in at B&H and put the money towards the new lens, so I'll get about $60 off the lens price. I'm looking to keep the expenditure under $300 (I'd like to try to also save for a Sigma 30mm f/1.4). So, the options boil down to: 1) Nikkor 18-105mm VR AF-S for $329 2) Sigma 18-125mm OS HSM for $339 3) Sigma 18-200mm OS HSM for $429 So, #1 is a genuine Nikkor lens which is usually considered a plus, and it's also the cheapest by a bit. #2 adds a little more zoom and seems to have no other fault besides not being a Nikkor (although Sigma is usually a well respected lens) and being just a tiny bit more. Finally #3 is a bit out of my desired price, but it's the wide range is certainly appealing. That said, I could probably get a dedicated long zoom lens with faster speed at the longer ends as well as more reach. Plus, it's another $100 away from the f/1.4 that I think I would use more than the 105 to 200mm focal range. So, the questions are is the 18-200mm worth the extra money? Is the Nikon brand worth losing the little extra zoom range over the Sigma? Is there a lens in this class that I'm not looking at? I need something in the roughly 18-100 range and at least f/3.5, faster is better of course.