Looking for a new lens

[Prospero]

Hi,
For a month now I have had my Nikon D-50 with the kit lens (18-55 f/3.6-f/5.6) and I am very pleased with it. However, the kit lens is not really giving me enough range, so now I am looking for a new lens. Sadly, I am on a limited budget (I am going to university next year, so I have to keep my savings largely intact), so I don't wish to spend too much.

I had several options in mind:
- The cheap options: I keep the kit-lens and buy a 55-200 lens.
- The all-in-one option: I replace the kit-lens and buy the Nikkor 18-200 lens with VR.
- Another option: I keep the kit-lens for the time being, buy the Sigma 70-300 (I read that one is the best in that range) and in the long run replace the kit lens with a 18-70 lens.

At the moment I think I will go with the third option, since I think that will give the best image quality. However I do have some concerns. First of all, having to walk around with multiple lenses and changing them all the time is something I have never done before and to be quite honest, I don't like the idea of that too much. Secondly, will you really miss the Vibration Reduction in the 70-300 lens?

Which option do you all think is the best, and secondly, which particular lens is best in that category? Any advice is appreciated.

[coldrain]

The Nikon 55-200mm is very nice at 55mm, but at 200mm the contast falls off quite a bit, and it gets more soft. SLRs are made for changing lenses... I think you will have to get comfortable with that.

The 18-200 lenses are of course convenient, but they are not top notch over their entire focal range. Heavy barrel distortion at 18mm, pin cushion from 35 to 200, CA at 18 (Sigma, Tamron & Nikon), they do have their fair share of problems. It is a compromise.

VR/IS at 300mm is of course handy, but not a necessity. For the price of that 18-200 VR you can also get a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma lens of much better optical quality, and since it is a faster lens it does to some extend give better options in lower light conditions compared to the VR (it lets you keep shutter speed down when needed).

[Payne]

[QUOTE]The 18-200 lenses are of course convenient, but they are not top notch over their entire focal range. Heavy barrel distortion at 18mm, pin cushion at 200, CA at 18 (Tamron & Nikon), they do have their fare share of problems. It is a compromise.

Nope. you shouldnt talk on lenses or equiptment you've even never tried.
Popular Photography April06 Edition:
18-200VR test.
http://www.decamaras.com/CMS/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/images/18_200VR_test.jpg
Conclusion:
http://www.decamaras.com/CMS/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/images/18_200VR_test_concl.jpg

Enough said.

VR/IS at 300mm is of course handy, but not a necessity.

???....VR system is needed even at 70mm.

For the price of that 18-200 VR you can also get a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma lens of much better optical quality,

much better??? show me some evidence of it....I tried the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Nikon 80-200f2.8 Afs and no way....the Sigma is nothing, compared to the Nikon zoom.
Besides, you can not compare a walkaround lens starting at 18mm vs a 70mm lens wide open.....two totally different lenses.

Prospero
Visit my gallery to see some Full Size images taken with the D50+18-200VR.
http://www.pbase.com/afukuda/cusco_puno

[Prospero]

Thanks for your advice, Coldrain and Payne.

I realise that SLRs have been made for changing lenses, and you're right, Coldrain, I will have to get used to that.

I see there is a lot of different opinions on the Nikkor 18-200 VR. There are some really nice pictures in your photo gallery, Payne, and that test is indeed very positive about the lens.
Now, when looking at the range 70-200, how does this lens compare in that range to the Sigma 70-300?

I looked at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. However, that is getting a bit too expensive for me. Here in the Netherlands it is priced at 800 euros, and that is more or less the price I have in mind for getting the whole package (two lenses or the 18-200). I assume the Nikon 80-200 is just as expensive (or even more expensive).

Secondly, I saw a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Nikon-AFD on the internet. This seems to me an appropriate replacement for my kit-lens. Is this a good lens? How does it compare to the 18-70 of Nikkor?

[Payne]

Now, when looking at the range 70-200, how does this lens compare in that range to the Sigma 70-300?
at that range, either the 18-200VR or the Sigma 70-200f2.8 outperform the Sigma 70-300APO.

I assume the Nikon 80-200 is just as expensive (or even more expensive).
Sure, the Nikon costs more than $1,000.

Secondly, I saw a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Nikon-AFD on the internet. This seems to me an appropriate replacement for my kit-lens. Is this a good lens? How does it compare to the 18-70 of Nikkor?

The Sigma 17-70 is a good lens and even faster than the Nikon 18-70, so I'd go for the Sigma (similar price, similar focal range, and also the Sigma is faster f2.8 > f3.5 /wide open - and f4 vs f5.6 / long end)

[coldrain]

[QUOTE=coldrain]


Nope. you shouldnt talk on lenses or equiptment you've even never tried.
Popular Photography April06 Edition:
18-200VR test.
http://www.decamaras.com/CMS/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/images/18_200VR_test.jpg
Conclusion:
http://www.decamaras.com/CMS/components/com_simpleboard/uploaded/images/18_200VR_test_concl.jpg

Enough said.

.

???....VR system is needed even at 70mm.

,

much better??? show me some evidence of it....I tried the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Nikon 80-200f2.8 Afs and no way....the Sigma is nothing, compared to the Nikon zoom.
Besides, you can not compare a walkaround lens starting at 18mm vs a 70mm lens wide open.....two totally different lenses.

Prospero
Visit my gallery to see some Full Size images taken with the D50+18-200VR.
http://www.pbase.com/afukuda/cusco_puno

You are full of it. I do not care if they claim there is hardly any barrel distortion, even users of the lens on this forum in the Nikon DSLR part have shown its barrel distortion. Any zoom like this has barrel distortion, Nikon cant do magic. Popular photography is often a bit questionable, and I guess this is one of those times.

And a VR system needed at 70mm? I wonder how we all get by without then! Ridiculous thing to say. In some situations it can be of help, but in most it is just not needed.

And everyone with a little bit of knowledge knows that the 70-200 f2.8 crop of lenses are a lot better than the cheap superzoom kind that the 18-200 VR is a proponent of. And your claim that the Sigma is nothing compared to the 80-200 nikon is another silly thing to say. You may have tried a lemon but the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is extremely sharp over the whole range, has good contrast, and is all in all a great lens. We just had a whole discussion about it on the Nikon forum by the way.

I knew I was right not replying to your post in the Nikon forum to a post of mine... I thought I recognized your nick as someone who just wants to argue with me because I am a Canon owner. You did that in the past in the same way. *sigh*

[coldrain]

Distortion figures of the 18-55 kit and the 18-200mm Sigma were taken from ColorFoto magazine.

According to Ken Rockwell he needs to correct the 18-200VR the same as the 18-55mm at 18mm. The kitlens has a 1.4% distortion at that focal length. The Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC has 1.2% barrel distortion at that focal lenght.

This means that the 18-200 VR is pretty much the same in this respect as the 18-200 Sigma.

The 18-55 kitlens then relativily is distortion free between 35-55mm (0.2-0.1% pincushion), while the 18-200 ilk has quite severe pin cushion from 35mm, going down slowly towards 200mm (according to Ken Rockwell's findings the Nikon has this too: again this is very comparable to the Sigma, showing 1.2% distortion at 116mm and 0.9% at 200mm).

foto magazin uses different measurements, so the results are a bit hard to compare. They measure the Tamron 18-200mm as having 4.1% barrel distortion, and 1.7% at 60mm pin cushion, and at 200mm 0.9mm pin cushion.

The pincushion results between the two magazines are comparable, the barrel distortion is not. But comparing the same lenses with these results
(in this case the Sigma f2.8 18-50mm lens) shows that the results are very consitent and also very consitent with all 3 18-200mm candidates.

colorfoto: 2.7% barrel at 18, 0.2% barrel at 28, 0.2% pincushion at 50mm.
fotomagazine: 1.2% barrel at 18mm, 0.2% at 35mm, 0.2% at 50mm.

Why popular photography magazine comes to a lot lower distortion I do not know, but they are off the mark quite often anyway.

[Payne]

[QUOTE=Payne]
[QUOTE]And a VR system needed at 70mm? I wonder how we all get by without then! Ridiculous thing to say. In some situations it can be of help, but in most it is just not needed.

According to your equipment list, it seems you never own a stabilized lens, so you dont have enough knowledge and experience to talk on this matter.

And everyone with a little bit of knowledge knows that the 70-200 f2.8 crop of lenses are a lot better than the cheap superzoom kind that the 18-200 VR is a proponent of.

yeah, thats for sure.....but you always talk based on others opinions....not your own experience...that's the problem. Do you think the Sigma 70-200f2.8 is better than its Canon par (70-200f2.8IS)??? I really dont think so.

You may have tried a lemon but the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is extremely sharp over the whole range, has good contrast, and is all in all a great lens.

again, I know the Sigma is a great lens, but the Nikon 80-200AFs is simply unbeatable....no doubt on it.....I did not buy that lens, because Im planning to get the 70-200VR maybe at the end of the year.

I thought I recognized your nick as someone who just wants to argue with me because I am a Canon owner.

Nope. I appreciate your comments and opinions....however you never recognize when you are wrong....that's all :)

Finally, how come you compare a fast, long and heavy lens with a small, light and all purpose lens??? If I can buy only a lens that gives me very good image quality at all focal lenghts, I need no more......I guess "Prospero" is not a PRO, so why should we advice him PRO lenses?

regards.

[coldrain]

Yes, the Sigma is on par with the Canon IS concerning distortion, sharpness and contrast. We just HAD this discussion in the Nikon forum.
That it probably in colour is not the same as the Canon one is another thing, and I do not know that. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR scored less than the Sigma at 200mm, in fact.

The Sigma is just a very good lens, period.

And since the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Nikon 18-200VR are in the same price range, what does the "pro" remark have to do with anything.

I advice the 70-300 APO DG from Sigma, for it is much cheaper than the 18-200VR, it gives more tele range, it performs better at 200mm than the 55-200mm, and VR is not a necessity (unless your uses do demand a tripod or VR).
And in thge former post I pointed out that for the money of a 18-200VR you can get the great 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. I really wonder where I was "wrong".

[Payne]

[QUOTE]Yes, the Sigma is on par with the Canon IS concerning distortion, sharpness and contrast. We just HAD this discussion in the Nikon forum.
Dont think so....I've seen several tests side by side and the Canon lens outperforms the Sigma by far.

The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR scored less than the Sigma at 200mm, in fact.

Again, any test to share? or simply words, words and more words.

The Sigma is just a very good lens, period.

It's just a good lens. No more. You get what you pay. CA is really dissapointing on the Sigma lens.

And since the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Nikon 18-200VR are in the same price range, what does the "pro" remark have to do with anything.
Sigma lens starts at 70mm and ends at 200mm and what about the 18-70mm range??? so....not the same.

And in thge former post I pointed out that for the money of a 18-200VR you can get the great 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. I really wonder where I was "wrong".
that is your mistake....you think your opinion is the smartest buy decision....but you are totally wrong....the sigma is heavy, long, bulky, NON OS, only 70mm at wide end and the performance is just AVERAGE.....I did not buy the 80-200 Afs f2.8 cuz the excellent VR system is a NEED from 80mm to 1xxxmm. period.

Question: If the Sigma is so perfect, why did you buy the Canon 70-200 4L (a $550 lens) ??? if for the same money you can get a "like-new" Sigma lens.??? why dont you get the lenses you recommend??

[jcon]

When will this crap ever end? :confused: Just my two cents but I am opting for the Sigma 70-200 over the Nikon 80-200 becuase of actual pictures I have seen taken with the D50. I was very pleased with the Sigma,in my opinion it outperformed the Nikon. But then again, I have never actually used it, so I really cant comment, correct? *sighs*

[erichlund]

So, if he pays $90 more for the Sigma and has to sell the 18-55 (as he suggested he would for the 18-200), what does he do for the wide angle range? Drill a pinhole in his camera cap?

BTW: Here's a before and after with vignette control in Capture and Barrel correction in PSP - Nikon Capture won't do this last on this lens, only fisheye, as far as I can tell. This is an 18mm photo from D200 to demonstrate barrel distortion. As you can see, it's controllable.

Before:
http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/59718325-M.jpg

After:
http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/59718326-M.jpg

This was just a quick and dirty effort. I have to get ready for work, so I didn't have time to mess with getting it exact.

Cheers,
Eric

[coldrain]

So, if he pays $90 more for the Sigma and has to sell the 18-55 (as he suggested he would for the 18-200), what does he do for the wide angle range? Drill a pinhole in his camera cap?

BTW: Here's a before and after with vignette control in Capture and Barrel correction in PSP - Nikon Capture won't do this last on this lens, only fisheye, as far as I can tell. This is an 18mm photo from D200 to demonstrate barrel distortion. As you can see, it's controllable.
This was just a quick and dirty effort. I have to get ready for work, so I didn't have time to mess with getting it exact.

Cheers,
Eric
I really do not understand your post, It looks like you read everything I write in the most negative and inaccurate way.

Why would someone sell a 18-55 to get a 70-200, i never suggested that. The reason why he would think of selling the 18-55 is because they overlap dont you think? You hardly can sell a 18-55 as it is.

In my original post I said Ithought it would make more sense to go for a 70-300. The 18-200 lenses are a compromise to have a big range in just one lens, and I wrote that that does come with its drawback, such as severe distortion. Then that Payne guy wants to contest that, well it is not a secret that the 18-200's all have quite a bit of distortion. As you prove with your door picture. That you can post process that I never contested and that is hardly the point, now is it?
I never contest that my Sigma 18-50 EX DC has barrel distortion at 18mm, or CA at 18mm and wide open.

Further more I never said he should get a 70-200, I said that the for the same money you can get a 70-200 which is a much better lens.

I can not help that this one person here claims the sigma 70-200 EX APO DG HSM is not a good lens either, he even claims it has a lot of CA, which is just untrue.

I'm getting so sick for being slammed by just noting facts and giving my view on lenses in the Nikon forum. I wrote nothing that is nonsense and you often just jump on me, Eric.

Very nice when you react like a bull on a red cloth whenever something you own is mentioned.

I am just glad that I can help people decide on a nice lens at times, like lately on a 70-300 APO DG Sigma and a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. Which both seem to perform very well for those people.

I totally agree with jcon, *sigh*.

[Prospero]

Thanks for your replies, everyone.

I'm still not sure, but I think I'll go for the Sigma 70-300 APO DG and the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Nikon-AFD which in total will amount to a price of about € 558,-. That way I will have some money left which I can spend on accessories or perhaps the 50mm f/1.8 prime, which seems to get very postive comments on this forum.

I really like the convenience and VR of the 18-200, and I think I can live with the distortion, since it can be fixed easily with photoshop. However, it is a bit more expensive then the option I described above, which has more range and, correct me if I'm wrong, will also have less distortion. Besides, I don't think I will use the tele range of the lens too much in low light conditions. So, for that matter, the VR is not really a necessity. Therefore I think the the two Sigmas for me will be more value for the money.

Now, about the Sigma 70-200, I can only just aford it, and since I would not get much money for my kit-lens I might as well keep that one. The lens is without a doubt a very good one, but I don't like the size of the lens, and I don't like the idea of having a gap (between 55 and 70) in my zoom range either. Also, since I am not sure how much I will be using the tele range (after all, I have never before used a camera capable of zooming any further than my old 3x Olympus point and shoot), so this lens is really to expensive for me.

About that Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Nikon-AFD, I couldn't find any reviews on the internet about that lens, only a comparison of this lens with a Canon equivalent. Does anybody have any experiences with this lens or know something more about it?

[coldrain]

The 17-70 is a very new lens, that is why you have not found anything about it yet.

[erichlund]

I really do not understand your post, It looks like you read everything I write in the most negative and inaccurate way.
Frankly, because you always try to find a way to put the Nikons in the worst possible light. Who here goes out of their way to constantly show Canon lenses in their worst possible light.

For examply, your pictures of the street entrance the other day. You compared those four photos without much commentary, even though there were clearly things that could have been done better on the D200 photo by a knowledgeable user. It's now common knowledge that for a jpeg photo users should shoot +1 or +2 sharpening on the D200, but Jeff always shoots Normal. If he had posted a raw shot, it could be corrected, but you cannot correct the as shot jpg. Then there is the fact that he was about 1 1/3 stops wider open on the D200. As a result, the white building was out of critical focus. This was due to the late afternoon time he took the shot, rather than the full sunshine of the other photos. Using USM, I could get the pagoda as sharp as the D50 photo, but there was only so much I could do with the white building. You often use Jeff's photos as representative, but you are not recognizing that different conditions affect the performance of a lens. That's why DPReview uses lab photos for their comparisons.

Why would someone sell a 18-55 to get a 70-200, i never suggested that. The reason why he would think of selling the 18-55 is because they overlap dont you think? You hardly can sell a 18-55 as it is.
Because, by his definition, he cannot afford even the 18-200 without getting rid of the 18-55, and (below)

In my original post I said Ithought it would make more sense to go for a 70-300.
Perhaps you should go ALL the way to the top and read your VERY first post again. The ONLY alternative you mention is the 70-200.

The 18-200 lenses are a compromise to have a big range in just one lens, and I wrote that that does come with its drawback, such as severe distortion. Then that Payne guy wants to contest that, well it is not a secret that the 18-200's all have quite a bit of distortion. As you prove with your door picture. That you can post process that I never contested and that is hardly the point, now is it?
Yes, it is part of the point. You gave a negative recommendation on the lens by talking about the distortion. I simply show that it is easily fixable. My fix would not be acceptable for some types of pro work, but is certainly acceptable for the VAST majority of amateur work.
I never contest that my Sigma 18-50 EX DC has barrel distortion at 18mm, or CA at 18mm and wide open.
I didn't either. I try not to talk too much about lenses I haven't used, except for some handling issues, such as the fact that the 18-55 Nikkor doesn't have the same ability to manually focus in autofocus mode that other AFS lenses have.

Further more I never said he should get a 70-200, I said that the for the same money you can get a 70-200 which is a much better lens.
Which is implying that he will not be satisfied with the 18-200. There's also your bias against VR/IS/OS (depending on brand). Since 200 is a 300 angle of view on the Nikon's, VR is very useful in low light. EVERY review I've read about the 18-200 lens has been positive, and has placed it at the top of the list of this type of lens. Certainly, it has flaws. But the OP is looking for affordable additional range, and this was one of his options. If you had simply said that you felt the Sigma 70-300 was your recommendation of best choice, I'd have not issue. We're all entitled to our opinion, but you didn't really recommend that lens until your 4th post, and then you were still recommending the 70-200 as an alternative to the 18-200. Now, I haven't used the Sigma, but I have played with the Nikkor 70-200. I don't think I'd take that with me on vacation unless my vacation purpose was as a photo shoot. It's very heavy. But I have no problem carrying the 18-200 around everyday, all day. The lenses have different purposes.

I can not help that this one person here claims the sigma 70-200 EX APO DG HSM is not a good lens either, he even claims it has a lot of CA, which is just untrue.
Certainly this is not in response to myself. I know almost nothing of this lens and have made no comment on it, other than price vs the OP's other options (a cheap way to extend his range).

I'm getting so sick for being slammed by just noting facts and giving my view on lenses in the Nikon forum. I wrote nothing that is nonsense and you often just jump on me, Eric.
My other post merely responded to your claims. Is that not the purpose of a forum? You, in your first post, only demonstrated one alternative, which I thought was beyond the OP's chosen expense level. So I made that simple point. I also demonstrated that for an amateur, there were tools to overcome lens issues that you OFTEN point to as making a lens a poor choice.

Very nice when you react like a bull on a red cloth whenever something you own is mentioned.
Find one place where I go into the Canon forum and start attacking Canon equipment. One would think you work for Canon the way you troll the Nikon forum.

I am just glad that I can help people decide on a nice lens at times, like lately on a 70-300 APO DG Sigma and a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma. Which both seem to perform very well for those people.

I totally agree with jcon, *sigh*.

From your first response on this thread, your only "apparent" alternative:
VR/IS at 300mm is of course handy, but not a necessity. For the price of that 18-200 VR you can also get a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma lens of much better optical quality, and since it is a faster lens it does to some extend give better options in lower light conditions compared to the VR (it lets you keep shutter speed down when needed).

I simply ask the question, if he cannot afford the 18-200 without selling his current lens, then how can he afford this lens at all?

And since you are often talking about barrel distortion and vignetting in this lens (in fact, a major point of contention on the thread), I demonstrated that these are fixable. I could have done better, but time was short.

[Payne]

Prospero:
The Sigma 17-70 is a good lens, but I wouldnt buy a tele zoom lens without a stabilization system. I own the Nikon 70-300ED but Im gonna sell it soon since after having the 18-200VR I've realized the VR system is a NEED. It works amazingly.

P.D. BTW, I agree with Erick.

[Prospero]

I suppose you're right about the VR, Payne. Sadly, there are so little telelenses with VR available for a Nikon. Besides the 18-200 I only saw the Nikkor 70-200 and the Sigma 80-400, which are both more than a 1000 euros here in the Netherlands and hence way too expensive.
You and Erick are not making this choice any easier ;) (which is a good thing, really). I'll reconsider the 18-200 VR and try to find some more information on all the lenses concerned.

[erichlund]

Don't get me wrong. While I think the 18-200 is a very nice everyday lens, I have no problem with you choosing the 70-300APO Sigma. It's a very nice lens, but you will need more light than you will with the VR. If you are shooting action, VR won't do you any good. Great for static shots, though. But the Sigma is probably your cheapest solution for getting decent quality tele.

Cheers,
Eric

[Prospero]

Don't get me wrong. While I think the 18-200 is a very nice everyday lens, I have no problem with you choosing the 70-300APO Sigma. It's a very nice lens, but you will need more light than you will with the VR. If you are shooting action, VR won't do you any good. Great for static shots, though. But the Sigma is probably your cheapest solution for getting decent quality tele.

Thanks for your reply, Eric. I did not get you wrong, it's just that the points made about VR, the convenience of the lens, as well as all the positive reviews I have read that make me uncertain about what I should chose. Anyway, I'll think it over this week. I'll let you know when I have come up with a decision.

[jcon]

Prospero, Its nice to get other peoples suggestions and feelings on lenses, but in the end, only you can decide what YOU want. I suggest you go to Pbase and look at photos real people took in the same settings you will be in. Compare pictures to lenses and see which you prefer from actual images! Good luck with your decision. Whichever you buy, enjoy it, you already have a great camera body!

[Payne]

When someone advises you to buy any lens or camera body, you first, should ask him or her, for sample pictures, since forums are full of "Trolls" who are used to praise or criticize equipment they've never owned or even tried.
Digital Photography gives you the chance to see how good or bad is certain lens or camera of any given brand, by seeing images at "full resolution" - that is the only way to prove if the equipment you wanna buy fits your needs or satisfy your requirements.
As you've noticed, in the thread you've started, some guys recommended you some lenses that they've never tried - so, how come they can do that? I dont know, but I strongly suggest ignoring them.

Best Regards, :D

[coldrain]

You are the biggest troll, Payne.

[George Riehm]

The 17-70 is a very new lens, that is why you have not found anything about it yet.

Judging from the MTF Chart this is a lens that you set at f4 to f8 and shoot away.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3315&navigator=6

I have to admit it is intreguing.;)

[Prospero]

Thanks for the helpful advice everyone!
I have decided I'll go with the Sigma 17-70 and the 70-300. I have looked at PBase and the pictures taken with both lenses seemed good to me. There's not too much about the Sigma 17-70, as it is new, but the comments I have read about it were positive.

By the way, George, how do your read an MTF chart? I have read the description of Sigma in which they describe what the chart is all about, but I don't see how you can get any information on the sharpness of this lens out of the chart.