Nikon 16-85 VR vs. Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC vs. Nikon 18-105 VR: Any suggestions?
352468
For indoor go with the fast glass. On a DX sensor the 17-50mm is perfect. Tamron for the money is half the price of the equivalent Nikkor. Also the Tamron produces nice bokeh for portrait work.
1668188
You mean the Tamron 18-300mm VC lens compare to 18-270mm lens. In my opinion the 18-300mm VC is a better lens for the price
175988
you want the 18-270 for a 1.6 crop camera...anyway that's what I'd recommend. I have an old 28-300 for a 1.6 Canon beautiful lens but no VC I don't know if they make this anymore but I took a lot of award winning shots with it email me if your interested :-)
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
1762795
I'm a previous owner of Tamron's 18-270 vc. The 18-270 was annoyingly noisy when set to auto focus. The benefits of upgrading to Tamron's 16-300 are increased range and quiet pizzio drive. &#538;amron's 16-300 is my new go to all around lens.
1418843
You did the right thing with the D40. See the Lew Rockwell site.I have had mine for several months, and the more I learn about it,the better I like it.I recommend you buy the 55-200 VR lens to go with it.Unbelievable.
1668187
I really like my 16-300 mm Tamron and would recommend it to someone looking to purchase something in that range. That being said, I have never used an 18-270, but, my guess is that you can't get as close or as far with that lens as what I get. But the difference really isn't that much. If it were me and looking to to move up, I'd move up to the Nikon 80 - 400 mm lens. It has what I think is a better glass, and more range. However, you can get a Tamron 150 - 600 mm for about half the price of the mentioned Nikon.
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
759248
We thank everyone for there suggestions. We went to the 50 1.4 for a fast lens. Having not used our 17-40 that often, no need to spend mucho money on the 16-35.
369533
The 18-55 is a lot sharper than 18-135. I just bought the 18-200 VR from www.pcnation.com, was in stock and was delivered yesterday! Have not tried it yet.
1910673
I've got a 18-55 that came with my D40 and I bought the 55-100VR. I don't really miss VR on the shorter lens. I love my D40 bur an itching to step up, so a body only option is welcome. Why is it camera companies assume people are always buying their first camera instead of stepping up? I'd look at the 3200 but it lacks support for the wireless remote, which I have found invaluable for getting into family shots or for long exposures. Cable release just doesn't cut it.
1360610
No, I would highly suggest going for the VR version for a few extra bucks. This is obsolete. I also would suggest getting a new version as this lens is old and many used ones won't operate correctly.
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!
422107
bought my nikon d40 lately. read good things about the camera through kenrockwell site. it helps me a lot to decide. now am thinking of buying the nikkor 18-200mm VR lense. btw the 50mm f1/4 lense and d40 they say is compatible. but am not so sure how to install the lense in the camera. any suggestions?
608748
I have both for my Nikon D300s. Sigma 17-50 2.8 is a much better choice. Range in slightly narrower but indoor performance, portrait photography, and bikes are better.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.