At the moment, I have the stock lens and a 50mm f/1.8d for my D40. I have started to take pictures of my friends' Sunday league football team informally and combining this with wanting a longer range walkabout lens anyway, I've been looking for a new lens with built in AF and considering those below. What will give me best value for money - preferably 2nd hand and <£175 unless the a more expensive one is worth it? I'm going to read some reviews but how do Nikkor lenses compare with Sigma ones? Nikkor AF-S VR DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G ED Nikkor AF-S DX 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF (Nikkor AF-S VR DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED) - too expensive so prob out of question Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS - I've spotted this new for £149!! Seems a bargain/wrongly priced - worth it if I can get it? Edited 20-11-09
Out of them i'd get the 18-105 myself, the 18-200VR is good, but its ~£350, so out of your budget. Not really a walkabout, but the 55-200VR is good, and cheap.
I did consider the 55-200 VR DX, but I think I might go for convenience rather than having to change lenses, unless I really can't find an affordable 18-xxx.
Personally i'd rather two lenses, but that's because lenses that cover 18-200 aren't gonna be brilliant at one thing, but having two wont fit in your budget.
To revive this thread, a combination of not photographing football lately due to the bad weather, and finding it harder to shoot as the nights draw in has led me to reconsider what to buy. I came across this: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/digital/17_70_28_45.htm Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC HSM MACRO ~£250 new Would this be a worthy improvement/replacement over the 18-55 kit lens? Adv is obviously longer ranger, larger aperture and macro. However I am confused as the lens compatibility table at the bottom of the link says it still won't autofocus with the D40 despite HSM. Anyone know why? http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcb...&forum=152&topic_id=13319&mesg_id=13319&page= lists it as AF. Or is there a non-HSM version?
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II ? Hmmm, honestly not sure whether I'd benefit from the extra 20mm or the f/2.8 across the full zoom range but leaning towards the length. (Then there's the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD in MM which looks attractive but I think I'd miss the wide angle as I do shoot buildings/landscapes when on holiday.)
I find wider apertures more useful at longer focal lengths, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Variable aperture zooms always seem a bit ass-backwards (for obvious reasons)...you tend to want small apertures at short focal lengths for landscapes/architecture/etc, and medium/large apertures at portrait length. 50mm on a crop sensor is quite usable for portraits. If in doubt, go for the fast glass
Tamron 17-50 2.8 (new version has VC/VR) Nikon 16-85 5.6 VR has a very useful focal length, the 16mm is aweome. If you are looking towards an 18-105, which is a fine lens, due to the reach, then I suggest a 55-200 is a better investment. Having 2 lens to go the 16/18 - 200/300 is the way to go. The 18-200 type lenses sacrifice to much image quality. If this is a type of ens you would really like then I suggest bying a Canon G11 or some such instead. As a DX Dream team I have the 16-85 VR and the 70-300 VR. These 2 lenses cover an amazing focal length with very good quality. (I am slowly building up the 2.8 pro version, have the 80-200 2.8) The cheaper version is an 18-55 kit and 55-200.
The 18-135mm is a fine lens apart from producing more chromatic aberration than is ideal but I can't say I noticed it when I had one. I've now got a 16-85mm and really miss the extra reach of the 18-135mm.
