Need Recommendation: Sigma 18-200 vs. Tamron/Sigma 28-300


Status
Not open for further replies.

Lord Hokage

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
155
0
0
Need Recommendation of a walk around lense to use with my D100 currently i have a 18-70 f3.5-4.5, find the range abit limiting. But no $$ to spend on a Nikon 70-200 VR or 80-200 F2.8 ED AFS.(Me NSF only pay around $400+ a month?) Thus looking at much cheaper alternative in the above mention lense.

Need fellow CSer who have used the two/three lense do give me some feedback on how they perform so that i can make a choice. Thanks for your help in advance!

Cheers
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
36
Lord Hokage said:
Need Recommendation of a walk around lense to use with my D100 currently i have a 18-70 f3.5-4.5, find the range abit limiting. But no $$ to spend on a Nikon 70-200 VR or 80-200 F2.8 ED AFS.(Me NSF only pay around $400+ a month?) Thus looking at much cheaper alternative in the above mention lense.

Need fellow CSer who have used the two/three lense do give me some feedback on how they perform so that i can make a choice. Thanks for your help in advance!

Cheers
I would recommend the Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR. It is a sharper lens than the Nikon 18-70 and the VR functions means that you can even handheld the lens at lower light than without.

The Sigma and the Tamron 18-200 is not recommended because the aperture at 200mm has gone up to f/6.3 which is smaller than Nikon's recommended aperture of f/5.6 or larger for AF to work properly. AF hunting has indeed been reported with the use of these lenses.
 

calvinlo

New Member
Dec 13, 2004
374
0
0
Yishun
As lsisaxon said, the Nikon 18-200mm VR is the better option.

BUT...if money is a problem (which I think it is for you :think: ), then...I guess you can only choose between Sigma or Tamron. IMO, which one is suitable depends on whether you shoot wide angle more (where 18mm will be very useful) or tele more (where 300mm is relatively useful).

Hope this helps.:D
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
calvinlo said:
As lsisaxon said, the Nikon 18-200mm VR is the better option.

BUT...if money is a problem (which I think it is for you :think: ), then...I guess you can only choose between Sigma or Tamron. IMO, which one is suitable depends on whether you shoot wide angle more (where 18mm will be very useful) or tele more (where 300mm is relatively useful).

Hope this helps.:D
Get the Nikkor 18-200 think no further. MTL, BBB!!
 

Lord Hokage

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
155
0
0
espn said:
Get the Nikkor 18-200 think no further. MTL, BBB!!
Oh no the ESPN famous words hahaha. I also want to leah If i can one the same price as the tamron or sigma la :p

No choice la no $$ to play with those lense. Personally to me tele is more important currently perhaps later then will proceed to invest in a wide angle lense :)
 

SEXiao

Deregistered
Feb 3, 2006
246
0
0
AMK
Was checking the lens out too... quoted by the following:

1. CP- S$1200 (but no stock)....... maybe can get cheaper else where... :dunno:
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Lord Hokage said:
Oh no the ESPN famous words hahaha. I also want to leah If i can one the same price as the tamron or sigma la :p

No choice la no $$ to play with those lense. Personally to me tele is more important currently perhaps later then will proceed to invest in a wide angle lense :)
If tele more impt, consider investing on a good one right from the start like 70-200VR.
 

SEXiao

Deregistered
Feb 3, 2006
246
0
0
AMK
Check with you guys... the Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR lens.... is it any good to do macro???

I know the AF105mm/f2.8D is good, but not enough length... their rest of course is out of budget for me....
 

Lord Hokage

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
155
0
0
SEXiao said:
Was checking the lens out too... quoted by the following:

1. CP- S$1200 (but no stock)....... maybe can get cheaper else where... :dunno:
MS Quoted $1250 inc gst and also no stock :p
 

SEXiao

Deregistered
Feb 3, 2006
246
0
0
AMK
Lord Hokage said:
MS Quoted $1250 inc gst and also no stock :p

So MS cheaper by S$10... by no stock leh...
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
SEXiao said:
Check with you guys... the Nikon 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR lens.... is it any good to do macro???

I know the AF105mm/f2.8D is good, but not enough length... their rest of course is out of budget for me....
Nope... you should buy the 105 Micro also.
 

Lord Hokage

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
155
0
0
SEXiao said:
So MS cheaper by S$10... by no stock leh...
Well over the phone MS did say stock will come end of the month. But do confirm with them.

Hai anyway please back to my topic so any recommendation for a cheaper solution for tele?
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Lord Hokage said:
Well over the phone MS did say stock will come end of the month. But do confirm with them.

Hai anyway please back to my topic so any recommendation for a cheaper solution for tele?
70-300ED, 28-200, but I recommend the 70-200VR :thumbsup: If not at least 18-200VR :thumbsup:
 

Lord Hokage

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
155
0
0
espn said:
70-300ED, 28-200, but I recommend the 70-200VR :thumbsup: If not at least 18-200VR :thumbsup:
How's the 55-200MM ED?
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Lord Hokage said:
How's the 55-200MM ED?
Not too bad from my few months of usage (courtesy loan from Nikon SG) with the D50s. Quite surprised the 55-200 is a pretty good performer for it's price :thumbsup:
 

Lord Hokage

New Member
Dec 26, 2005
155
0
0
Hmmz personal OT anyone can tell me the difference between the Sigma 70-300 Apo Super Macro I and II??

Will aim for this lense first
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Lord Hokage said:
Hmmz personal OT anyone can tell me the difference between the Sigma 70-300 Apo Super Macro I and II??

Will aim for this lense first
My advice is skip this glass and go for Nikon direct.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.