Help me choose a good walkabout lens!

robertgilbert86

robertgilbert86

robertgilbert86

Associate
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
2,220
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
Hi all, I need help finding which one of these would be best for the following criteria: Nikon fit, 17 or 18mm at the low end and at least 135mm tele.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC £189
sigma18-200.jpg


Tamron AF 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO £204
tamron18-200.gif


Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED £210
nikon18-135.jpg


I favour the Sigma currently; does anyone have this? The price is great and the zoom is enough. Also if you have it what filter size is it?
I know little about the image quality of the above lenses. I imagine the build quality will be worst for the Tamron, then Sigma, then Nikon. I assume the Nikon will be much like my current kit 18-55mm lens.

Any opions would be great, cheers in advance!
 
A friend of mine has the 18-135 Nikon and it puts the 18-55 to shame. It made me seriously gutted that I went for the kit lens. Having said that, I've not used the Sigma or Tamron so I can't compare.

If you want the extra range of the Sigma then I would recommend saving your pennies for a while until you can afford the Nikon 18-200 f2.8 VR. I realise that its twice the price of the most expensive lens you've suggested, but IMO it would be worth it. Although you're only getting one extra f.stop you're getting Image Stabilising and extra glass quality.

I suppose it really comes down to how soon you want the new lens.

Do you feel you have reached the limits of the kit lens? are you just after some extra zoom? In which case have you considered a telephoto like the Sigma 70-300APO. These can be had for around £100 and would give you extra range, as well as macro. I realise you're after a walkabout lens and so having to change lens in the field can be a pain (my current combo is the 18-55 and 70-300) but I'm planning on replacing both lenses with the 18-200 VR after I've got a 10-20 wide angle.

If you're after a new lens right now, then I can highly recommend the Nikon, but see what other people say about the other two.

Panzer
 
Go to fred miranda reviews and check up on lenses, the tamron received a rating of 6.7 there while the sigma and nikon lenses are not reviewed, google is your friend sir, ask around and read up.

I have recently got a tamron 17-50 and its build and picture quality are OUTSTANDING, very impressed with that particular lens I got :)
 
Nikon 18 - 135.

It will give the best results. Even though its the shorter of the pick this will only add to overal quality. Lets face it, If lenses were good from 18mm through to 400 we would all have one. Fact is, they are not.

I would really consider the Nikon and then in the future get something dedicated to the 100 - 300+ range.
 
Fstop11 said:
Nikon 18 - 135.

It will give the best results. Even though its the shorter of the pick this will only add to overal quality. Lets face it, If lenses were good from 18mm through to 400 we would all have one. Fact is, they are not.

I would really consider the Nikon and then in the future get something dedicated to the 100 - 300+ range.
Click to expand...

this man speakef the truth, the 18-135 has alright reviews from what i have read. when you look at lenses with such a vast range from 18-200 you lose lots of sharpness on the top ends of the lense. guess its why SLR's are interchangeble cos you get a lense that is specific at its own range, more expensive having loads of lenses but you get the quality that you want from an SLR.
 
Panzer, were you talking about this lens? 'Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED DX VR Lens ' £536. I didn't think it was F2.8, if it was the VR may be redundant.
But yes, I've been eyeing up that lens since before I got my D50, it is the dream, but unfortunately permanently out of my budget! Even if I had that money I'd probably split it.
I too want the Sigma 10-20mm, but I feel the 18-135 will be more use at the moment so that'll have to wait.

I have been to FM but as you say the 2 lenses I'm most interested in aren't there. The 17-50 is an F2.8 jobby though and I was previously thinking about it, but if the Nikon is cheaper and, from the sound of it, equal/better quality, the range wins it over aperture for me.

I don't like changing lenses much (dust etc) so I'd go for an all-in-one. This is partly for my trip to Uganda in the summer and I don't want to be swapping lenses in the jungle!
One day I'll have the 50mm F1.8, Sigma 10-20mm and the Sigma 70-300m, but that day is far away!

So in summary it sounds like the IQ benefit from reduced zoom is worth it, and after all, I'll mostly be using it at the low end.
So Nikon wins unless people persuade me otherwise!
 
robertgilbert86 said:
Panzer, were you talking about this lens? 'Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED DX VR Lens ' £536. I didn't think it was F2.8, if it was the VR may be redundant.
Click to expand...

Quite right good sir, my mistake.

For some reason I had it in my head that it was F2.8 :( shame it isn't really. It's still the holy grail for me lens wise though. Can't wait for the day when I can have the 10-20mm and 18-200 VR as a pair :)

I've seen it for less that £536, £480 using Google's product search and Ebay even lower. Even so, It is a lot for a lens. <sigh>

So it looks like the 18-135 for you then. Good choice :)

Panzer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom