nikon 18-55 vr lens or nikon 18-200 vr lens?

[Daki_One]

i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.

 

[Samriel]

i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.

I don't think the 18-200mm is going to be much better in low light, although the VRII will give it a slight edge over the 18-55mm.

 

[smyth]

i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.

what did you expect? it's a variable aperture lens.

 

[JerryPH]

i dont like the 18-55 VR at all. it came with my nikon d60 and it just fails in low lights.

If you really want to be disappointed in your 18-55, test it against a Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 DC EX HSM macro... this lens has handily beaten the $1500 Nikkor 17-55 in shoot-outs done by 3 independent photo magazines last year.

That would be the definition of disappointment right there... lol

 

[TUX424]

If you really want to be disappointed in your 18-55, test it against a Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 DC EX HSM macro... this lens has handily beaten the $1500 Nikkor 17-55 in shoot-outs done by 3 independent photo magazines last year.

That would be the definition of disappointment right there... lol

I always laugh when i hear this brought up...
But that is comparing apple to oranges.
The Sigma 18-50 make for low-light with the f/2.8
Nikon 18-55 NOT make for low light and cheaply built

 

[photogincollege]

If you want a cheap start up lens, I'd say go for nikon 18-70. If you want a much better lens, and can spend a few hundred more, the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50 or tokina 16-50 etc. Combine that with maybe a 55-200 (a cheap but pretty good lens) and you'd be set for awhile.

 

[smyth]

I always laugh when i hear this brought up...
But that is comparing apple to oranges.
The Sigma 18-50 make for low-light with the f/2.8
Nikon 18-55 NOT make for low light and cheaply built

he said the $1500 17-50mm nikkor not the $100 nikon kit lens.

The only difference really between the sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the nikon 17-50 f2.8 is a the build quality, which is better on the nikon, and the price, which not surprisingly, is higher on the nikon.

That's embarrasing, when you pay 1/3 the price and get better quality images out of it. The only downside you can't knock someone out with the Sigma!

 

[smyth]

If you want a cheap start up lens, I'd say go for nikon 18-70. If you want a much better lens, and can spend a few hundred more, the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50 or tokina 16-50 etc. Combine that with maybe a 55-200 (a cheap but pretty good lens) and you'd be set for awhile.

The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is only $25-$75 more than the Nikon 18-70...

 

[JustAnEngineer]

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC HSM goes for about $375. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II goes for about $395.

 

[JerryPH]

That "cheap" Sigma 18-50 is sharper than a Nikkor $1500 17-55... has lower distortion, less CA, less pin cushioning and a free macro mode tossed in for the same price (no its not a 1:1 macro but for the price, but come on... neither the Nikkor nor Tamron even have a macro mode nor focus on an object that is a 1/2 inch from the front element so there! LOL! ).

The Tamron cannot say that. The Tamron also has one issue that irks me... the screws on the inside element come loose over time and often even drop out. This doesn't happen on all of them, but about 25% of the Tamron 17-50 Flickr users who bought one about 1-2 years ago (when I was doing my homework on which to get), reported this issue. It was relatively easy to fix, just a watch maker's screwdriver in a comletly dust free environment and a little automotive locktite along with 20-30 minutes work solved it... but I do not understand why I as a new lens owner would need to do this... becuase this was not covered under warranty and anyone that sent it back to Sigma received a $125 invoice.

 

[photogincollege]

The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is only $25-$75 more than the Nikon 18-70...

Sorry I got mine for like 100 dollars used, and it was brand freakin new XD. I was talking used prices when I said that. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[dcclark]

I would never describe the image quality of that lens anywhere near amazing.

I guess I should qualify: for a $100 kit lens, it's amazingly good. I'd be quite happy to use it in most circumstances -- yes, there's some distortion (although not as much as many lenses). Yes, it's cheaply made (but light, which is a bonus, and I haven't had ANY trouble with actual quality). Yes, it has a variable aperture -- but so do almost all zooms which are as light and anywhere near as inexpensive.

Finally -- for anyone just starting out, the Nikon 18-55mm is going to offer good enough quality that they won't notice its problems -- and that's good because they can then focus on what matters: composition! colors! subjects! ... and all of those other non-technical things that are all too easy to ignore when you get caught up in equipment. (And THEN... when they've figured a few things out... they can figure out which new and shiny lens will be best for them.)

 

[JustAnEngineer]

That "cheap" Sigma 18-50 is sharper than a Nikkor $1500 17-55...

I'm not surprised that folks that sent their Tamron lenses to Sigma for repair were invoiced.

Several reviews have indicated that if you get a good copy, or if you are patient enough with Sigma's warranty, they make some excellent lenses, but there are a disturbing number of stories of problems, especially with the telephoto zooms.

Here are a couple of reviews from the Canon realm:
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens Review
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens Review

Of course, I splurged ($854) on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. :lmao:

 

[ventolin]

What Sigma 18-50 2.8 exactly is better than nikon's and costs about 35-80 $ more than the nikon 18-70. there are many sigma 18-50.

 

[KmH]

This thread died nearly 2 years ago....FAIL.