A cheap all-round lens?

N

NWT

Messages
148
Edit My Images
Yes
I normally use my 18-55 kit lens, which is great, but I sometimes find myself needing more reach than 55mm. I also have a 70-300 lens, but it can be quite a pain switching them all the time. I still want 18mm, because I use that a lot. I've looked at the Sigma 18-200, and that seems the best bet so far. Do you think the 70-300 will be pretty much useless if I have an 18-200?

Ideally, I don't want to spend more than £220, and it needs to have a built in AF motor because my camera (D40) doesn't.
 
I had an 18-200 as a kit lens (vr mki). However I found it to be soft, especially against the 105mm macro.

If you like the wide end, perhaps a 20mm f2.8? But as you've said you don't like swapping, perhaps : Nikon 18-105mm AF-S DX Nikkor f3.5-5.6 G ED VR Lens (found one on warehouse express for details).

I suppose it depends on what you're shooting and which would be better. Not swapping but being a little soft (probably) or being crisp but having to swap lenses.
 
ecniv said:
I had an 18-200 as a kit lens (vr mki). However I found it to be soft, especially against the 105mm macro.
Click to expand...

I replaced my Nikkor 18 - 55mm (non VR) and 55 - 200mm VR with a Sigma 18m - 200mm and have found it to be as good as the two Nikkors generally.
On a D40.

Before I actually decided to keep the Sigma I did a range of test shots at various focal lengths from 18 right up to 200mm with all three lenses. Viewing them on a 22" monitor (in .psd) I could see no discernible difference between any of them - EXCEPT that I did see that the Hoya UV filter on the 18 - 55mm lens WAS producing a poorer picture.

The Sigma is a fairly heavy beast but I have found it to be a lot easier than continually swapping lenses ! No regrets in purchasing this lens.
 
ecniv said:
But as you've said you don't like swapping, perhaps : Nikon 18-105mm AF-S DX Nikkor f3.5-5.6 G ED VR Lens
Click to expand...

:agree: Having just purchased an 18-105 VR I can recommend it. If you'd like a little extra reach the 18-135 is also a good lens which will AF on your D40 but doesn't have VR.

The 18-135 was my first lens upgrade when I bought my D40 and I love it :)
 
Bristolian said:
:agree: Having just purchased an 18-105 VR I can recommend it. If you'd like a little extra reach the 18-135 is also a good lens which will AF on your D40 but doesn't have VR.

The 18-135 was my first lens upgrade when I bought my D40 and I love it :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. Do you not think the VR would be better/worth more than an extra 20mm?
 
NWT said:
Thanks for the suggestion. Do you not think the VR would be better/worth more than an extra 20mm?
Click to expand...

Good question :)

I bought the VR because I have trouble hand holding at anything below 1/200s - camera shake is my speciality :D

Actually, I like both lenses: the 105 for the VR and the 135 for the extra reach. Having said that the 135 is destined to be handed down to my grandson at Christmas along with my D80 - his hands are steadier than mine :)

Now that's what I call sitting on the fence :lol:
 
Iv'e said this in a previous thread, I changed for the same reason, i.e. to save keep changing lenses, and bought an 18-135. I haven't really noticed the need to have VR up to 135, but I did on the 200 on my old 55-200. Having said all that, I think that if I had had the oportunity to get an 18-105 with VR at the time I would have bought it. I think you just need to decide which you would find the most usefull, the extra reach or VR, and I realise I haven't said anything to help you make that decision!!
 
If shooting indoors and you can't use a flash you'll never regret abuying VR lens. Same goes for any low light situation where you don't want to use a flash. Go for the 18105 VR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top