Help 18-200 decision

[abdotson]

I was hoping to get the DPS community's experience and expertise on deciding on a new lens. I've done some research but still can't decide. I'm choosing between the Nikon 18-200, Sigma 18-200, Tamron 18 - 200. I know that Nikon is top of the line, but affording it right now is kinda tight. Are the other two comparable?

[RexK_Cozumel]

what is your reason for getting an 18-200?

[sk66]

I use a Sigma 18-200 OS EX....
It's my favorite general purpose lens and I'd put it up against the Nikon any day. It gets reviews better than the Nikon. I'm not familiar with the Tokina version, but to date I've been very impressed with their ATX Pro lenses.

Oh, you said Tamron... In general I find Tamrons to have decent optics, but lesser build quality.

You can check out fred miranda.com for reviews of the lenses you are considering...

BTW, I will probably replace this lens as my general purpose with a 28-70mm f2.8 Tokina AT-X Pro. That covers the range 85% of my pics are taken (other than scenics or wildlife and I have lenses for that) and is a "better" lens....
I may very well keep the 18-200 as my "tourist/ wandering" lens...

[abdotson]

Originally Posted by RexK_Cozumel

what is your reason for getting an 18-200?

I take pictures of sports/action such as my husband's drag races as well as sporting events for the yearbook at the school i teach at. I also like to take nature/wildlife photos any time of day.

[WooD]

I'd be worried about true image quality with an 18-200 no matter who made it. That's a serious broad focal range.

I'd either save up for a new or used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8

Their built like a tank, and are super sharp. At least the copy I have is.

[sk66]

For sporting events and wildlife, 200mm is at the short end IMO. An 80-200 f2.8 and a 2x converter might work for you. I've had good luck with my Sigma 50-500mm, but it's a "slow" lens.

[kirbinster]

If money is tight I would say skip it, you already have almost the entire focal length covered with the two lenses you have, which will both give you better images than the 18-200. The 18-200VR is a great lens of convience because it covers such a range, but it is far from a must have lens.

[kencaleno]

The focal range is too much to expect good quality-It goes against laws of optical physics,any more than 3 times zoom is asking for problems. Regards, Ken

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

If money is tight I would say skip it, you already have almost the entire focal length covered with the two lenses you have, which will both give you better images than the 18-200. The 18-200VR is a great lens of convience because it covers such a range, but it is far from a must have lens.

Agree only if the 70-300 you have is the VR version. 18-200 VR is a logical choice for any walkabouts and vacations--when you may care more about convenient than distortion.
Check your previous photos to see you need longer focal length for wildlife (to reach out) or faster lens for sport (to freeze the action).

The Nikon 18-200 VR should be a better choice except for the higher price and lens creep (on some samples). Let your funding determines which one to buy, but double check Sigma/Tamron at the store for sample variation.

[sk66]

I failed to notice the lenses you already have..
I wouldn't consider the 18-200 an "upgrade"....more of convenience. I'd probably save for a "better lens".

But, FWIW I get pictures like this all the time with my 18-200...