Sigma 18-200mm vs Nikkor

[rayjay86]

Thanks dodger, I appreciate the advice. I think I've heard a lot more pros for the 35mm than for the 50mm so I think I'm leaning towards it. Its only about another $30 so it's reasonable.

So you also say go with the Nikon 70-300 huh? I really wanted the 18-200 a while back but it's just way out of my price range, even used.

I have a Sigma 10-20mm and I absolutely love that lens which is why I don't really agree when people say sigma is garbage. I've taken awesome shots with it, but it's a very scene-specific lens.

Maybe I will consider the Nikon 70-300 without the VR. I have a really sturdy collapsable tripod that I could use with it I suppose. I guess I'll have to see how the funds are closer to when I'm buying.

For now I think I'll just stick with the 35mm. Man, DSLRs are so awesome but there is just sooooooo much you have to consider once you've actually bought the damn thing!

----------

Also, can someone explain to me why the 55-300 VR is cheaper than the 70-300 VR? Considerably, almost $200 cheaper on Amazon.com. Both are f/4.5-5.6, both VR, ED, and all those other fancy letters that follow the newer lenses.

To me I'd want to have a larger zoom range right?

 

[Artful Dodger]

Welcome, I say that about the 70-300 because I thought (insert lack of wildlife experience photography) the 18-200 would be a nice happy medium. Then once you get out and about and taking the actual photos then well, you get a taste for the distance you can/could have, it becomes a game changer. I was able to get nice photos with the 18-200 but the 70-300 is much nicer imo if you have another lens for under 70mm.

I did try a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, the newest model and it was nice and sharp and yet I have also read people having issues with some Sigma models. I have also somewhere on here read that the 85mm (I think 85mm) Sigma was better than either the Canon or Nikon if you got a clean model. I think it's the luck of the draw with third parties at times.

I don't know what the 50mm goes for now but the 35mm was $196 at my local shop and it was worth the wait. I also listened and did what some folks here suggested many times to do and that was look at the lengths you are shooting at before buying. I ended up somewhere from 16-40mm (using my kit lens) then it jumped to 85-130mm (a friend had the 18-200 for me to test for a few weeks) and then 270-300mm (using the 70-300) once the 18-200mm felt a bit short.

So once again I'm making myself learn using the 35mm by walking to change the distance if possible because it does live up to the hype and the 70-300 on a tripod gives you the second thought to try pushing distance or subjects that you wouldn't think about with a shorter lens.

Side lesson, I didn't think to tell a friend to make sure to NOT use the built in flash when using the 18-200 (he borrowed it for a wedding, never used a superzoom, and glad it was just for memories) but to use my SB-700, yeah well most of his photos produced the wonderful half moon on the bottom of the photos. I read about this before ever doing it but…keep that in mind for the future 18-200/70-300 and don't think crap something is wrong with my lens

 

[rayjay86]

Thanks Dodger.

Any thoughts on the 55-300 VR? It's quite a bit cheaper (for student budget anyways) and it seems to have a larger range and includes VR. It has the A/M switch as well (which I don't understand because most reviews online criticized its ability to manual focus easily).

I'm looking into this one now, mainly because of price. Thoughts?

 

[David08820]

Hi ray jay 86

Do not ignore the 55-200 vr either it gets excellent reviews and is much much lighter than the 70-300.

the kit lens 18-55 vr is also very good and combining this with the 55-200 gives the same range as the Nikkor or Sigma super zoom without the inevitable optical compromises made with super zooms. I bought my 18-55 vr refurbished for a little over $100 and the 55-200 vr new for a little over $200.

I used the 2 lens combination and a D90 on a trip to the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone this summer and I felt that even if I missed a few shots by having to change lenses it was probably more than made up for by being able to take very quick shots one handed if necessary because of the light weight of the lenses.

Hey at this price you could even afford to get other lenses as well such as a prime or a 70-300 vr for when you specifically need them

Both lenses have plastic mounts though so you have to be comfortable with treating them more gently than you would a metal mount lens.