Travel lens dilemma of a Nikon D3000 user

[anniehun]

Hi DPS Friends,

I need your feedback on this one. After reading tons of reviews and visiting sites on the net, I managed to confuse myself best I could. I read articles here on DPS, too, but those were talking lenses mainly for Canon bodies.

Long story short, I am no pro in terms that I do not make money of my photos. I consider myself one of those "serious amateurs"/enthusiasts. My main passion is travel, combined with photographing just about anything that I like. I am not yet specialized in any particular field of photography. I love just wandering around new places, countries, landscapes, getting to know people, cultures, ways of life, and shoot whenever I feel like I see something I have to capture or share. Love taking environmental portraits, candids, street shots, close ups, as well as stunning landscapes occasionally.
Most of the time my shots require me being fast and snap in a split second, and the best photos I have taken so far happened to be in natural low lighting. That is just trying to explain what I would need in one lens ... (I know, I like to dream.)

I do have a 18-55 VR and 55-200 zoom (you Nikon owners know these kit lenses), but switching them a hundred times a day causes serious risk of getting dust on my sensor as well as the lenses. I understand from what I have read, that combining the two in one lens means you have to compromise, as there is no super zoom that gives the same quality as a specific mid-range or a prime.

So, I am now in deep thinking and dilemma...
Firstly, is it worth buying a general purpose/travel lens, instead of carrying the two I have?
If so, those of you who have one, which one of these you think works best on Nikon D3000? Sigma, Tamron or the more expensive Nikon?

I am hoping that some of you Nikon users/experts out there do have experience in this matter, and can help me out
Thanks a lot, in advance!

[Barbara V]

I can tell you that Tamron lenses are sharp and really good. I used them with my old NikonFM2 (film) and was so happy with them. As for which lens to choose, I don't know if my opinion on that is worth much. I'm a purist, and would go for a 50mm prime.

[sk66]

I recommend the 18-200... for general purpose. If used well it gives great results.
Here is a set of photos I took while on travel in China; just about every picture in that set was taken with the Sigma 18-200 on a D300. I had brought a lot more kit with me, but that was the lens I used 99% of the time. I had a lot more "keepers" from that trip...those are just a few I chose to put onto Flickr.

China set

[Shokinen]

The Nikon 16-85 is also an interesting lens. You won't get as far as the 18-200 but the 16mm compensate in my opinion. Most review will say it's expensive and for a bit more you will get the 18-200 but I still prefer the 16-85mm for some reason. I pull the 70-300mm when I need longuer reach or I just get closer when I can / crop in post. Build quality is similar. You will also read that it's a little bit soft at 16mm. While this is true, some sharpening will fix that in post. I take 75% of my picture with that lens.

16mm:



85mm:



Just another idea

[bigben6]

18-200 nikon is $850

18-200 tamron is 289 with a current 60MIR which is a STEAL

Sigma 18-200 is $279

I cannot comment on wether the tammy or sig is better I own neither, what I DO know and have read time and time again, is that any version of this lens makes heavy sacrifices in IQ and sharpness to give you that kind of flexability, just accept that out of the box, it will not be as good from 18-55 as your kit lense and it will not be as good fomr 55-200 as your kit lens, but you won't have to swap....

I bought (and do NOT regret) the Nikon 18-105 priced at $396, it gives up 95mm but it is VERY good through it's entire range, its light and manageable all day and it has VR which is nice. It is not amazing in low light, it's not super fast, but since buying it I NEVER use my 18-55 kit lens, and sold my other zoom cause it was not worth swapping IMO.

Another option would be the sigma 18-125 $339 for a little more zoom, haven't shot it, it gets soso reviews though, I'd want to shoot it myself before purchasing.

Sigma's 18-250 $479 has gotten good reviews but I have not shot it either

As you can see there are a TON of lenses to pick from, PERSONALLY i would not buy an 18-200 from anyone, if you had to jump on the tammy with the current MIR cause its a pretty low risk endeavor at $230 right now, the 18-105 nikon is IMO your best bet fro travel and ease of use, it doubles your 18-55 kit lense and gets respectable zoom without a ton of sacrifice, and without a loss in IQ.

I would go an d rent or shoot some of them yourself, if you like low light you might be better off with a mid zoom f/2.8 like tamron's 28-75 but again your gonna be making sacrifices in IQ, zoom capability, or price somewhere along the way.

[Doug Sundseth]

I have and use the 18-200 as my primary travel lens. I haven't seen significant problems with IQ, and Lightroom does a really good job of automatically correcting the lens distortion.

Relative to the 18-55 and 55-200, it's quite heavy, but it's nothing compared to (say) a 70-200. There's a bit of focal length creep (true with all the lenses in this class, I think), but that can be fixed with one of those rubber wrist bands.

[anniehun]

Thanks a bunch, you guys are very helpful and kind, spending so much time to give your advice. I am now putting all the info together, and considering all of what you have said. Will let you know once I made my decision. Again, appreciate your time and effort!

[mbrobich]

My most used lens for general walking around is my Nikon 18-135mm. They don't make it anymore so you'd have to find it used.

[kirbinster]

You can find used 18-200VR lenses for about $450 these days.

[TheEagleSpirit]

I just bought a tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 lens that is proving to be a great travel lens.