Superzoom lens question

[jnelson]

Hopefully i'm not the only person to go through this because I could use some direction.

My 18-135 lens recently broke and I am looking to replace it, no big deal right? WRONG!

Since I have gotten more interested in photography I have realized the necessity for fast glass. Eventually I would love to get the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and possibly the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Additionally I would like a mid range zoom in the 18-50 f/2.8 flavor. Those are the lenses in the future lineup so here is the question: Since I am looking to replace the 18-135 with more of "all around zoom" should I stick with Nikon and get the 18-200 VR lens for ~$750 (or VRII for $850) or save a couple hundred dollars and get the Sigma 18-250 or Tamron 18-270 for around $530, knowing that ultimately this lens will be a vacation/all around lens and not a "fast" lens.

I could get the Sigma or Tamron superzoom, save the $300 and be about halfway towards the Tokina 11-16 (or about $100 away from the Sigma 18-50 2.8)

Or...

Buy the Nikon and call it good.

Hopefully some of you can offer some advice on this, its too much brain damage for me lol. Oh yeah so you know, I am currently shooting a D40, plan to move to D90 in the future and I also own the 35mm and 50mm f/1.8

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jnelson

I could get the Sigma or Tamron superzoom, save the $300 and be about halfway towards the Tokina 11-16 (or about $100 away from the Sigma 18-50 2.8)

Or...

Buy the Nikon and call it good.

Get the latest Nikon 18-200.
Buying lenses is not about how many for your $ but saving up to get what u need & lust for. No need to buy twice.

[OsmosisStudios]

Dont skimp: buy the 18-50 f.2.8 NOW.

[jnelson]

Well that was the other thought, if I get the Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-50 (both f/2.8) Then I could also spend a few extra bucks on the Sigma 70-300 APO and have a pretty good range covered for around $650, still less than the Nikon 18-200 ($750). I dont see getting the 70-200 f/2.8 within atleast the next year or two so I would like some sort of long tele and thought the 70-300 could fill that gap for the time being.

Oh geez there is another option thrown in the pot. Any other ideas, im pullin my hair out here.

[sybren]

I'd go for quality glass. If that means you don't have a complete lineup *now*, so be it. I've never liked the super-zooms.

[jnelson]

Thats really what i'm leaning towards, i think ill end up with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I really like that lens and have gotten some great info from members here.

[CaptainNH]

I agree with Sybren, if you want one lens to do everything from ultrawide to telephoto, the quality is going to suffer somewhere along the line.

If the funds will allow, I'd look to cover the range in quality increments - it just means you need to decide where your photographic desires lie now to determine which length to start with.

[thegrandpoohbah]

Originally Posted by jnelson

Thats really what i'm leaning towards, i think ill end up with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I really like that lens and have gotten some great info from members here.

Might want to have a look at this review first: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Lens Review. I took a look at the Sigma when I was lens shopping and this review was one of the reasons that convinced me to go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

[jnelson]

This is the lens I was planning on buying, it is an EX model with the new HSM AF motor that is supposed to have better focusing. Im finding that reviews are too hard to judge by, yesterday I was set to buy the sigma after reading a few rave reviews but then the review above makes me question it. It seems like for every good review for Sigma there is a good review of Tamron. I see good shots from both when i search flickr, its just too difficult. The other problem is, my local camera store doesnt carry much in the way of lenses and ive always been pretty disappointed with their service, so trying the 2 against each other is probably out of the question.

Also, here is the review that helped me decide on the Sigma vs. Tamron. There are some good concrete points that made me decide on this lens. If you Tamron owners disagree let me know why, it will help me make a decision.

[thegrandpoohbah]

My bad, I didn't realize that you were talking about the HSM version of that lens. I took a look at both reviews that you posted and, while I have not personally used that lens, there are too many negative reviews there for my liking. It seems that many of the reviewers mention blurry or soft focus. Granted there are reviews that mention the same of the Tamron lens too.

My experience with the Tamron has been a positive one. I seem to have a sharp copy and have had no issues with quality (either image or build). My only complaint is that the AF system is noisy, though I find it to be fast and accurate. And though this is a relatively minor point, I love the Tamron lens cap. Even if you get the Sigma, do yourself a favour and go buy the Tamron lens cap as it is easier to use with the hood on.

And to make your decision more difficult, Tamron just released a VC (vibration compensation) version of the 17-50mm: Tamron launches stabilized 17-50mm F2.8 zoom: Digital Photography Review.