My 18-55 broke, replacement options?

[Msteelio91]

I was up in the rocky mountains this past weekend and took a pretty nasty tumble with my camera out... Camera is completely fine but my original kit lens (Nikkor 18-55mm 3.5) is dead.

Truthfully not the most impressed with that lens and I'm curious of my replacement options. Still in my kit are a 35mm 1.8 and a 70-300 f4, so I just want to fill that wide to medium range gap.

Any recommendations appreciated!

 

[JonA_CT]

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4? I loved mine -- sharp, fast, and wide for a reasonably priced zoom. You can find them in the $300 range used.

 

[SCraig]

Agreed. I gave my 18-55 to my sister when I got my Sigma 17-70.

 

[dannylightning]

that sigma 17-70mm

there are the sigma or tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lenses...

there is the sigma 24-105mm f/4 looks like a awesome lens.

the sigma 18-35mm 1.8 is a awesome lens..

 

[ClickAddict]

I agree with the Sigma 18-35 1.8. Great lens. With that you could also look at selling your 35mm 1.8 (Since the sigma would cover it) and finding a 50mm 1.8 to get you something in that gap between the 18-35mm and the 70-300mm you already own.

 

[Msteelio91]

Appreciate all the info guys, the Sigma or Tamron 17-50's are exactly what I was looking for. The 18-35 looks amazing but it's a bit out of my price range.

I noticed something I didn't expect though, the Tamron 17-50 is actually more than the Sigma 17-50, can anyone shed some light on that? I kinda figured the Tamron would be cheaper but it's nearly $100 more.

 

[dannylightning]

well its kind of hard to say why one company decided to charge a little more than the other...

i would read a bunch of reviews on each lens and look at a bunch of sample photos and see which one you like best..

i think there are a couple version of the tamron 17-50 2.8 if i remember correctly.. i think a newer verson came out not all that long ago.. so that could be it.. dont quote me on that but that is what i think i remember..

 

[jcdeboever]

I wouldn't sell the 35mm prime. I don't really agree because you get the 35mm coverage in a zoom, you drop the prime. Prime's are fantastic for sharpness, clarity, and color. 35mm of a DX body is very versatile and fantastic in low light situations. I find the focal length a little more useful than the 50mm on my D3300. I replaced my kit lens with a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 and never looked back. I think the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 is a good choice as well. If I wouldn't have got the 17-50mm free, I would have bought the 17-70mm for the extra reach.

 

[Watchful]

If you get a Sigma, you can (most likely) also adjust it and download and install any new firmware for it with their USB lensdock. If the lens was made after the dock, it will be compatible.

 

[Peeb]

I've debated 17-50 vs. 17-70 for several months myself, and hence taken no action yet.

Paralysis by analysis!

 

[jaomul]

Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is nice and you should be able to get it relatively inexpensive. A friend really like his 17-70mm also. I like my kit 18-105mm vr, but faster lenses aperture wise are nicer to have

 

[jubilee]

When I looked up the Sigma 17-70 mm, I only found the macro. Is this the lens you guys are talking about?

 

[SquarePeg]

Yes.

 

[KmH]

If you decide you want another Nikon 18-55 mm I know where you can get a used one for $45 including shipping.