Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: 18-200 lens

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by jdredd
    if he had the budget for the nikon VR, i don tthink he would be asking about the 3rd party alternatives..
    as usual, pay peanut get monkey.

    nikon vr would be the best, you pay more but you get the vr which is 3-4stops, better image quality, NIKON and faster focusing due to SWM. this few would be enough to roughly balance out the extra $

  2. #22

    Default Re: 18-200 lens

    if you apply your logic, then tamron, sigma and tokina may as well close shop tomorrow..

    but the fact is, they are capable of making good products, which can equal the optical quality of nikons or canon lenses.

    sure, i accept none of the 3rd party manufacturers currently has image stabilising, but sigma has its own equivalent to SWM or canons USM..

    and theres lots and lots of people who get by just fine, without image stabilising. and if a camera has a good low constant aperture, no reason why you cant still get good quality pictures.

    and lets talk about like for like. i cant speak for nikon, but i can give a canon example.
    canon has a very fine 70-200 2.8L. retails for around 2k.
    sigma makes an equally fine 70-200, also with a constant aperture, retails for 1.4k. and there are countless more comparisons like this that can be made for jsut about any focal range or prime that canon make.

    sure, canon is a canon, is white, better build quality. but i dont think anyone who has the sigma will say they have got peanuts. and by most accounts, its PQ is just as good as the canons.

    and as for the advice... wait till you can afford the VR?! come on guys. what are you, nikon reps?

    the most important thing that we share in common on this board, is we should all have a love of photography. and the most important thing about photography is getting out there and getting the pictures, not sitting around counting the pennies till you can afford somethng, just because its a NIKON? gimme a break.
    Last edited by jdredd; 30th May 2006 at 10:53 PM.

  3. #23
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    @ AMK
    Posts
    2,616

    Default Re: 18-200 lens

    either brand is ok if you dun need the VR, not worth it cause its 2x the price of a third party lens.

    go down to the shop and try out the lens..
    Last edited by westwest1; 30th May 2006 at 11:01 PM.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    1,107

    Default Re: 18-200 lens

    Sigma 18-200mm is a good lens.....but I find it rather slow....

    I finally got one Nikon 18-200mm VR lens......once i try, I know it's better than Sigma.....the VR function and colour rendition beats Sigma......but then of course, we are talking about the price of about 2 Sigma here.....

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: 18-200 lens

    Quote Originally Posted by jdredd
    if you apply your logic, then tamron, sigma and tokina may as well close shop tomorrow..

    but the fact is, they are capable of making good products, which can equal the optical quality of nikons or canon lenses.

    sure, i accept none of the 3rd party manufacturers currently has image stabilising, but sigma has its own equivalent to SWM or canons USM..

    and theres lots and lots of people who get by just fine, without image stabilising. and if a camera has a good low constant aperture, no reason why you cant still get good quality pictures.

    and lets talk about like for like. i cant speak for nikon, but i can give a canon example.
    canon has a very fine 70-200 2.8L. retails for around 2k.
    sigma makes an equally fine 70-200, also with a constant aperture, retails for 1.4k. and there are countless more comparisons like this that can be made for jsut about any focal range or prime that canon make.

    sure, canon is a canon, is white, better build quality. but i dont think anyone who has the sigma will say they have got peanuts. and by most accounts, its PQ is just as good as the canons.

    and as for the advice... wait till you can afford the VR?! come on guys. what are you, nikon reps?

    the most important thing that we share in common on this board, is we should all have a love of photography. and the most important thing about photography is getting out there and getting the pictures, not sitting around counting the pennies till you can afford somethng, just because its a NIKON? gimme a break.
    im did NOT saying that 3rd party are bad. im just saying that you pay the price for that quality. i think it worth it to pay 2x for VR/SWM/better quality and non third party.

    u can say that sigma have HSM which is equiv to nikon... but is it in 18-200? im comparing 18-200VR wif sigma/tamron 18-200 not other lenses... unless you tell me that sigma 18-200 is equiped wif HSM, den i got nothing to say

    I do use third party lens as well, and find them good like the sigma 70-300 and tokina 12-24. but what im saying here is that if you got the $ its better to get a good lens rather than pay lesser and be happy now but end up sad later on when you find the need to have all those functions.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •