- Messages
- 1,056
- Name
- Ciaran
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At present, I'm running around with a D40 and the kit 18-55mm lens. Since buying the camera, I'd always intended upgrading at the longer lengths with the very popular Sigma 70-300mm APO (which is now motorised, always nice). However, I've seen several people recommending the Nikon 55-200mm (non-VR) lens which is now only £178 at Warehouse Express - so not substantially more expensive than the Sigma.
Does the extra 100mm really make an incredible difference - especially as I've heard criticism levelled at the Sigma for softening up considerably between 200-300mm? Optically, up to 200mm, which is the better lens? Also, does the macro function on the Sigma lens warrant getting that lens or would I be better off spending £40-£80 on an additional macro lens?
As a guide, I'd be looking to use it as a general purpose zoom lens if such a thing exists - a bit of nature photography, sports photography and just getting that extra bit of reach in all aspects of photography out-and-about.
Does the extra 100mm really make an incredible difference - especially as I've heard criticism levelled at the Sigma for softening up considerably between 200-300mm? Optically, up to 200mm, which is the better lens? Also, does the macro function on the Sigma lens warrant getting that lens or would I be better off spending £40-£80 on an additional macro lens?
As a guide, I'd be looking to use it as a general purpose zoom lens if such a thing exists - a bit of nature photography, sports photography and just getting that extra bit of reach in all aspects of photography out-and-about.