What can rival the Nikon 18-55mm VR? *grin*

[Sn00bies]

Okay, so I know there's dozens of lenses that are much better than the 18-55 VR, however I'm looking to stay relatively cheap and in this focal range. I know some of you might say "You get what you pay for," but I don't think that applies necessarily all the time. After all, I got a pretty dang good lens in my 50mm 1.8 for just a hair over $100 . This is what I'm currently equipped with:

D200
Nikon 55-200mm VR
Nikon 50mm 1.8d
Sigma 10-20mm (waiting on pins and needles for)

According to Ken Rockwell, the 18-55 VR improved quite a bit over the non-VR... but then I take that with a grain of salt too. After just spending $500 on the Sigma, and still trying to find my way into a SB-600, I'm trying to keep things cheaper. I'm finding a lot of situations where I need the 18-50,80ish length.

I'm open to any 3rd party brands also, but I'm trying to find the best lens possible around 18-80 focal length for less than $200. Is the 18-55VR the best bet, or does Sigma or Tokina, etc. have a superior lens for the price?

 

[NateS]

For under 200 bucks....forget about it. Seriously. You're only option in that category is a used 18-105VR (good luck finding that even for under 200) the 18-135 (no VR), or the 18-70 (no VR). None of those will be any better than the 18-55 VR except the added range of the 18-105VR and swapping range for VR with the other two options.

You'll have to spend about $450 to get a better lens in that focal range and the two front runners are the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 HSM. You might be able to find one of the two used for $330-350.

 

[photogincollege]

I think the 18-70 is better then the 18-55 vr, if you don't mind not having vr. Go used if you can, I got mine for just a hair over 100 bucks.

 

[epp_b]

The 18-55 is probably the best lens you can get for price, next to the 50/1.8.

Stop it down to f/8 and it's pretty darn sharp. Minimal, easily correctable distortion. No vignetting anywhere (even with a thick filter). 1:3.2 reproduction ratio (considered within macro range by some). Weigh's almost nothing.

The only real downsides I can find are that the build quality is cheap, manual focus is nasty, AF is a bit slow and 18-55 is a fairly narrow range (although it's the same as the popular 28-80 on film or full-frame) ... but, for around $100, who's complaining?

 

[itznfb]

stick with it until you got $450 lying around for the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro HSM

 

[Sn00bies]

Sounds good... look like I'll just stick with getting the 18-55 then... maybe some day down the road I'll have another $500 to spend on a better lens in this category Wife-permitting... :er: Thanks a lot for your input people!