Need advice - Best lens combination

[TCPUSA]

I have a Nikon D300 and I've been using a Nikkor 18-200 for several years. It is a great lens but I would like to improve the quality from the DX to FX or close to FX. I narrowed it down to the following options without breaking the bank:


Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM
and
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom

or

One lens - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm

I take pictures of buildings, people and wildlife.

It is confusing reading all the reviews online. You comments will be appreciated - Thanks in advance.

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd be tempted to suggest the Nikon 17-55/2.8, or even the 24-70/2.8 instead of the Sigma, but other than that, that's a pretty solid option.

I use a Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6VR. If I had the scratch, I'd be getting a 24-70 to replace the midrange, but I just dont have 1800 lying around.

[TCPUSA]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'd be tempted to suggest the Nikon 17-55/2.8, or even the 24-70/2.8 instead of the Sigma, but other than that, that's a pretty solid option.

I use a Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6VR. If I had the scratch, I'd be getting a 24-70 to replace the midrange, but I just dont have 1800 lying around.

Thanks, I will research the Nikon option.

[autofocus]

What exactly is your budget? The new Nikon 24-120 is a well reviewed lens which will give you pretty much all you are looking for, but it's a little pricey.
Pros:
-F/4 constant over the entire zoom range, but a tad slow for low light situations
-solid build
-good medium zoom range acceptable for portraits, buildings, and some wildlife opportunities
-VR
-a vast improvement over Nikon's former versions of this lens which I would not recommend
-very good image quality
Cons:
-price at around $1200
-a little slow for low light, but that f/4 is constant over the zoom range, and VR could offset that for some shooting opportunities
-maybe a little short for some wildlife shooting, but will be 180mm equivalent on your camera

AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR from Nikon

[kirbinster]

If you want one lens, I love my Nikon 28-300VR. As you can see I have lots of better glass, but the 28-300 is quite versital and is not a bad lens. I had an 18-200VR-I that I liked, but when I got my D700 I wanted something that was FX. I tried a Tamron 28-300 and liked the range but was not happy with the image quality so I sold it and got the Nikon. I even use it on my DX bodies, and sold my 70-300VR as I found the quality of this just as good and it focuses faster.

[sk66]

I would not get the 28-300 for a DX body. I have one and love it, but it is the same thing as the 18-200 just designed for FX body. I'd get the Sigma 17-50 and probably the nikon 80-400. Both are "budget" options...there's options that are better but the price rises rapidly.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by sk66

I would not get the 28-300 for a DX body. I have one and love it, but it is the same thing as the 18-200 just designed for FX body. I'd get the Sigma 17-50 and probably the nikon 80-400. Both are "budget" options...there's options that are better but the price rises rapidly.

I don't agree, since the OP was talking about the 55-300, this is a better option. It gives you the same field of view on an FX that the 18-200 would give on a DX, but that has nothing to do with what the OP was asking about. It will yield a wider field of view than the 70-300 and I have found the image quality to be better and the focus faster.

[Meatshield]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'd be tempted to suggest the Nikon 17-55/2.8, or even the 24-70/2.8 instead of the Sigma, but other than that, that's a pretty solid option.

I use a Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6VR. If I had the scratch, I'd be getting a 24-70 to replace the midrange, but I just dont have 1800 lying around.

Yip, agreed on that. The 24-70 is my next lens. Might have to rob a bank though...

[sk66]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I don't agree, since the OP was talking about the 55-300, this is a better option. It gives you the same field of view on an FX that the 18-200 would give on a DX, but that has nothing to do with what the OP was asking about. It will yield a wider field of view than the 70-300 and I have found the image quality to be better and the focus faster.

Kirb, I understand that. I still think the 80-400 is a better choice for wildlife. I just think 300mm is cutting it a bit too short.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by sk66

Kirb, I understand that. I still think the 80-400 is a better choice for wildlife. I just think 300mm is cutting it a bit too short.

Sure longer is better, but I thought the 80-400 was not a very good lens. Isn't it very heavy and slow to focus?