Am thinking about making a purchase (sssssh don't tell HWMBO) and looking at these three options. I am going to be doing a lot of photo shoots and reportage work towards my level 3 city and guilds and thought this lens choice might be a good purchase. Obviously there is a significant difference in price between the Nikon and the others but wondering whether it is indeed worth the extra money. Any thoughts about the lens and their strengths and weaknesses would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Sarah
Nikon, Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm lens?
- Thread starter fidsey79
- Start date
- Messages
- 58
- Edit My Images
- No
fidsey79 said:
Tamron I've had good luck with. My sigma was soft but the tamron was crisp as long as its a newer version
- Messages
- 83
- Edit My Images
- No
If you can afford the extra looking at reports the Nikon is the best performer but I think in real life you wouldn't notice any difference.
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you want/need sharp photos at wider apertures (or any aperture for that matter...) It can onlybe the Nikon.
It is as sharp as your 55-200mm, has manual override, focuses to 1:3 and is worth that little bit more.
Of course the lead expensive more hassle alternative is 2 lenses. The 18-55/55-200mm combo is just as good and would cover all the above with the exception of manual override...but then it's annoying to change lenses...
The only other thing is...I don't think the Nikon actually gives 200mm but more like 180mm.
It is as sharp as your 55-200mm, has manual override, focuses to 1:3 and is worth that little bit more.
Of course the lead expensive more hassle alternative is 2 lenses. The 18-55/55-200mm combo is just as good and would cover all the above with the exception of manual override...but then it's annoying to change lenses...
The only other thing is...I don't think the Nikon actually gives 200mm but more like 180mm.