Good All-Around Lens for Nikon

[Moe]

Listen to Dao and go from there.

Research the Sigma 18-50 2.8 in place of the Nikon 17-55, if you decide that's the lens you're interested in. It'll be much cheaper and holds up well against the Nikon.

 

[manaheim]

Nikon 18-200mm VR II which it zooms further and meet your price range

This has been said several times, but of course no one ever reads the whole thread before posting around here...

The 18-200 is a "fine" lens, but not a good one.

Lenses are a study in compromises. The more capabilities they have, the worse they are... or the more expensive they are... or both. A fast prime lens is going to tend to be the best overall quality for the lowest comparitive cost. Add a little bit of zoom and either you lose capability (larger aperture, non-constant aperture) or your lose quality (lesser image quality at the various points in the zoom range, generally) or you pay significantly more money for the lens... or both. And this doesn't even get into the size and weight. What's more is the cost differential to keep that lens at a high quality is pretty much an exponential sliding scale. Now there are very few direct comparisons in the lens world, but let's look at this one for example...

Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5 VR ........ $230
Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II ........ $2400

Going back to our Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II ... $800

Now how good of a lens do you think that really is at 1/3 the price of the 70-200 with an additional 50mm of focal length?

 

[KAikens318]

I would actually go with a Sigma. I have noticed that they are just as sharp as Nikkors, great build, and cheaper. The 105mm 2.8 is really really nice. I use my 18-105mm as my all around lens, that one is the sharpest of the bunch that I have.

 

[ghache]

Any one is using the new 24-120 F4 VR?

 

[manaheim]

I would actually go with a Sigma. I have noticed that they are just as sharp as Nikkors, great build, and cheaper. The 105mm 2.8 is really really nice. I use my 18-105mm as my all around lens, that one is the sharpest of the bunch that I have.

This varies wildly by both lens model and even in some cases by individual copy.

In some cases the Sigma lenses are a good choice, but not in all. From most lens tests I've seen the Sigmas are (more often than not) behind the Nikkor equivs, but not always to a degree that matters enough to someone on a tighter budget.

The key is to review the tests, make the comparison, and choose what best fits your budget and needs.

 

[thedang]

35-70mm 2.8? old and cheap