| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2011 01:14:09 PM · #1 |
I broke my Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR into three pieces when it fell off of my tripod which had broken the same day.
I have no other lenses. Now I'm looking to replace it. The problem is that I was already looking into the new nikkor 55-300mm lens, but don't have the money for both now.
I'm wondering if I can settle for something from Sigma or Tamron that could play double duty such as:
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Wide Angle-Telephoto DG Macro Autofocus Zoom Lens for Nikon or
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR
This is my first DSLR and lens, I really have no idea about any differences in quality or results.
ANY help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 01:25:11 PM · #2 |
Photozone has a pretty good lens review section.
Tim |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 01:42:01 PM · #3 |
Thanks Tim!
I'll check it out :)
|
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:41:06 PM · #4 |
| FWIW I couldn't live without my 18-200 f3.5-5.6 VR. I've shot an entire wedding with that one lens, and they're usually no more than $600 used. Good luck! |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:49:37 PM · #5 |
You might be able to use this:
Tamron 28-300
Message edited by author 2011-09-22 15:01:57. |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:58:50 PM · #6 |
I've got a Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro-SV for Nikon that I put Craigslist for $235. Somebody replied via email that they'll take it for the asking price but I was too busy over the weekend to meet up with them.
I'd be willing to offer it to you first for $235 plus shipping before I email this guy back. I think that it's a good deal. If you want it. Let me know.
Here's what on Ebay for this lens
Message edited by author 2011-09-22 15:06:50. |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:59:01 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
FWIW I couldn't live without my 18-200 f3.5-5.6 VR. I've shot an entire wedding with that one lens, and they're usually no more than $600 used. Good luck! |
I've read loads of wonderful things about that lens. If I didn't have an FF I would probably pick one up! |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 03:01:48 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by sinistral_leo:
You might be able to use this:
Tamron 28-300 |
I'll give you a good deal!
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:32:24 PM · #9 |
| +1 for the 18-200 VR. I replaced a Sigma 24-60 f2.8 with this as my everyday lens and couldn't be happier. Versatile and sharp with plenty of variation in the range. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 12:37:13 PM · #10 |
The 55-300 VR2 is a very impressive lens. If you can afford it, get it, and pick up a used 18-55 or 18-70 a little later on eBay. The 18-55 is one of the least expensive lenses for Nikon used because people get them with camera kits, then upgrade and sell the 18-55's.
The 55-300 can focus to about 4.5 ft, which makes it great for butterflies and other smaller subjects, and is very sharp and clear even in difficult conditions with the VR2. It's one of my two favorites now.
 
Message edited by author 2011-09-23 12:58:23.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 05:13:53 PM · #11 |
I have had both the Nikon 18-200 and the newer Nikon 28-300mm. The price difference is not that great, and the 28-300 is a FAR superior lens (full frame coverage for down the road) and sharp across the range. The 18-200 was nice, but it has a tendency to go soft as you approach 130mm from either direction (I thought I was doing something wrong with it, until I saw it confirmed as a general design issue on lens review sites). The VR on both is superb. The 18-200 is a bit lighter and smaller, and does go wider. For all day walk-around lens use, either is very good. If you tend to need to go wider, then the 18-200 will suit you. Where did you predominately use your 18-55? If you seldom used it at 18, but found yourself pushing more toward the long end (and wishing for more reach), then I would easily recommend the 28-300 overall. And later on, when FF camera bodies are more affordable, you'll already have a FF lens :-)
Both those lenses were stolen recently. I will only replace the 28-300, and had stopped using the 18-200 a while back. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 05:18:57 PM · #12 |
I love my 18-200. I bought the 28-300 just because it was on sale and I knew I would go full frame. The advantage of the 28-300 is it's 77mm on the front, make it more compatible (without an adapter) with pro lens filters (assuming you have some) or the filters for a wide lens like the Sigma 10-20.
Back to the 18-200...I've had many people ask what lens I shot this-or-that portrait with...and they were surprised to find it was the 18-200. I've gotten some really sharp results with mine.
An example:
 |
|
|
|
09/24/2011 10:55:55 AM · #13 |
Thank you all for your help!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 07:07:27 AM EDT.
