Help with lens selection for my d40

[Mr.SuperHero]

I will be (hopefully ) purchasing a new lens pretty soon.
I want something with a lot of zoom as I am interested in shooting nature and critters apposed to portraiture.
I have a Nikon D40 and the 18-55mm lens that came with it.

I was taking a look at the Tamron 70-300mm lens, As it is fairly cheap and comes with a lens hood as an extra perk.

There is also the Sigma 70-300mm, basically the same price I just don't know whats better, I have heard Tamron and I have heard Sigma.

Also If there are any other fairly cheap zoom lens I'm missing please, feel free.

Any opinions help, Thanks.

 

[rdzmzda]

well since you asked for opinion i would say look for a prime lens why do you want such a zoom? they usually arent as good as their prime counterparts and since your going on the cheap end of the range might want to look towards a prime. you might want to wait and get a more medium priced lens or high end lens. however i have two sigma macro lens and i like them quite a bit actually so if youre dead set on these i would say go with the sigma

 

[NateS]

Based on your post, I'm guessing you are on a tight budget. Can you afford the 400-500 for a NIkon 70-300 VR? If not, the Sigma 70-300 APO is a good lens...especially sharp when stopped down.

Click the link in my sig and all of the animal pictures are with the Sigma 70-300 APO as well as all of my macro (flower and insects). It's really an underrated lens that gets dogged on by people who either don't know much about the lens, or don't know how to use it properly (or had a bad copy maybe).

 

[Mr.SuperHero]

Thanks for the help guys.
Yeah I think the Nikkor 70-300mm VR Is a bit out of my price range unless a miracle happens haha.

So Sigma over Tamron?

Whats better about Sigma than Tamron?

 

[rdzmzda]

So Sigma over Tamron?
Whats better about Sigma than Tamron?

not sure if sigma is better than tamron just saying that i have two sigma lenses that i really like....however im sure people would agree that any company even canon and nikon have their line of just bad lenses....and also good lenses so just go to a photography store and try it out

 

[Mr.SuperHero]

Yeah I'll defiantly try and go to a photography store and check both out.
Thanks.

 

[ANDS!]

Nikon 55-200MM VR out of your range?

 

[Mr.SuperHero]

Nikon 55-200MM VR out of your range?

I'm sure I could afford that, Would the quality of this lens and the pictures be worth cutting down on the zoom length?

 

[BTilson]

I'm sure I could afford that, Would the quality of this lens and the pictures be worth cutting down on the zoom length?

I've got the 55-200 VR, and I've done some shooting with the 70-300 VR. The difference at the long end between 200mm and 300mm really isn't all that much. I was actually kind of shocked at how little the difference really was. Yes, it might make a difference in some shots, but I can't see it being worth basically double the cost. I love my 55-200, and have gotten some really nice sharp shots out of it. You'll want to stop it down a bit for optimum sharpness, as it's a bit soft wide open at 200mm, but it's an excellent lens, and the VR works wonderfully well. I'd say that given the price range vs your budget, the 55-200 VR would be the way to go.

However, I'd skip right over the non-VR version. For the extra $50 or so, the VR is WELL worth it.

Hope that helps a bit.

 

[puyjapin]

like some of those shots on ur site. the frog is good. i saw the sigma for £150 in the uk on ebay.co.uk, this included post inside uk so dunno if u guys might do better buying from the uk with your favourable exchange rate!! Im considering buying one myself!!

 

[Mr.SuperHero]

I've got the 55-200 VR, and I've done some shooting with the 70-300 VR. The difference at the long end between 200mm and 300mm really isn't all that much. I was actually kind of shocked at how little the difference really was. Yes, it might make a difference in some shots, but I can't see it being worth basically double the cost. I love my 55-200, and have gotten some really nice sharp shots out of it. You'll want to stop it down a bit for optimum sharpness, as it's a bit soft wide open at 200mm, but it's an excellent lens, and the VR works wonderfully well. I'd say that given the price range vs your budget, the 55-200 VR would be the way to go.

However, I'd skip right over the non-VR version. For the extra $50 or so, the VR is WELL worth it.

Hope that helps a bit.

Thanks man,
Would you mind telling me some of the shots that are on your Flickr that are shot with the 55-200mm?

 

[NateS]

I can't say which between the Sigma and Tamron, I only know that the Sigma (APO version) is a good lens that rarely gets the credit it deserves. Posted about my pictures to give you an idea about what is capable with the Sigma.

I also had the Nikon 55-200 and actually sold it to get the Sigma 70-300 APO. I prefer the colors and contrast that I get out of the Sigma versus the Nikon (though the Nikon was good), and I've been getting just as sharp of pictures out of the Sigma.

Picture at 300mm

 

[BTilson]

Here is a link to all my stuff tagged with 55200.

Flickr: Tilson Photography's stuff tagged with 55200

I think there are a few in there that are mistagged though. If you aren't sure, you can always go to "More Properties" and look at the focal length and that will tell you for sure, since I only have the 18-55 and the 55-200 lenses.

<edit>

Here is a flickr group for the 55-200 VR lens. You can see LOTS of shots with that lens here.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/356195@N23/