Need a Lens for My D200

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>I have a D200 camera and am without a lens. I had the 55-200 VR and 18-55 VR (from d40 kit) but both were stolen with my d40 bag! I bought a d200 body from bestbuy and have been using an old sigma lens, but now have 400 dollars to spend on a new lens. I want to get something of value (400 isnt much, so i want to get as much bang for my buck as possible) and something with a fairly wide range (would like to be able to use this as my go to lens for most situations). Suggestions would be MUCH MUCH MUCH appreciated.<br>

<br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>Ben</p>

<p>My first suggestion would be the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, but they run about 800-1000 used.. so that's out of the budget.<br /> <br /> The next best thing is a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. and you might be able to find one in your budget.</p>

<p>AVOID the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro. It might be in the budget, but I had one and never got good results with it. I did get most of the value back out of it when selling it though, but I didn't like the lens. I got a Nikon 50 f/1.4 AFS instead and have really enjoyed it.</p>

<p>i'd suggest the tamron 17-50mm or the sigma 18-50mm. sorry to hear that keith's copy of the sigma was bad. mine was excellent and it was better than my tamron 17-50mm. both are in the vicinity of $425.</p>

<p>My store sells the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and its a swell lens. I sold one to an editorial photographer friend a few years ago who didn't want to shell out the $$$ for the 17-55mm Nikkor, and he's been quite happy with the lens.</p>

<p>We've also sold some Sigma lenses and some Sigma-made lenses. I would offer that Sigma makes some interesting and excellent lenses. However, as Keith and Ramon's posts illustrate, Sigma seems to have ongoing problems with quality control on some lenses- one will be just fine optically, and the next will have noticeable issues.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and it is a super lens. B and H has them for $400 with free shipping. I use it on my D200 for portraits and walking around.</p>

<p>It would be easier to help you if you told us what you like to shoot, but from your post, it seems that you are an allrounder. I have no information on prices where you live but maybe a Nikkor 18-70 or/and Sigma 50-150 could fit in the budget? </p>

<p>Or a Nikkor 18-200.</p>

<p>A used 18-70 is a great mate with that camera and is in your budget, then hold on to the rest to buy a tele zoom later if you need it.</p>

<p>What do you like to photo? If you like to photo night time football games I'll suggest different lenses than if you like to photo insects and mushrooms.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Another vote for the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 from me, it's an excellent budget wide lens. Depending on your habits the Nikkor 30/1.8 or the legendary 50/1.8 might be a good investment too.</p>

<p>I agree with Per-Christian, check out the 18-200. Its a great lens with the D200 and a used one off ebay or elsewhere is probably within your budget.</p>

<p>My every-day walk-about lens on my D200 is the Sigma 17-70mm +Macro.  Almost as sharp as my Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro.  Wider than the 18-70mm Nikkor and faster too.<br>

 </p>

<p>If you're into low light, action, and need good DOF control, you should probably go with one of the 3rd party f/2.8 normal zooms, like the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron or 18-50 Sigma others have mentioned.</p>

<p>The 18-200 could be a good choice if you want to the most zoom range or selection of FLs in a lens. </p>

<p>The 16-85 VR should be an alternative to the 18-200 that offer less range but better optical quality.</p>

<p>The combination of a 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR remains a good option for you. I would personally choose this over the 18-200 due to the latter's optical shortcomings. </p>

<p>i wouldnt bother with kit lenses. a 2.8 zoom makes a lot of sense on a d200, which isnt that great above ISO 800. with that budget, the 17-50 would be an excellent choice.</p>

<p>As has been mentioned, the Tamron 17-50 is a wonderful lens. Later, when you have more $$$ to spend, you can pair it with a 70-300VR (also about $400-425, used) and you'll have a great combo. To put the icing on the cake, they both take 67mm filters, so you won't have to buy CPs in different sizes.</p>

<p>I really liked my 18-70, it's in your price range, and is a very good walk-around lens.</p>

<p>The 18-70 is my walkaround lens, and I find it to be quite sharp. Actually, I have not yet found the legitimate reasons for "upgrading" this lens.</p>

<p>After doing a certain amount of research, I bought the 18-105mm VR lens for my daughter, and have been impressed by its optical quality combined with the convenience of its size and range. You can get them for around $250 on the auction site. The lens has a plastic mount, so it's durability over the long term may not be optimal if you anticipate changing lenses a lot in the future. If you pair this lens with an AI or AIS 200mm 4 telephoto - which is perfectly usable on the D200 and can be obtained with the remaining $150 - it makes a versatile and light kit, albeit without AF at the "300mm" range.</p>

<p>At that price range, and if you want to stick with Nikon glass, the 18-70 is probably the best (most versatile) choice, unless you need something faster. If you do, go with the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the 17-50.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 18-70. It's sharpest around 30-60, if my memory is accurate. Add a 50mm f1.8 for a fast portrait lens if that's something you do.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A used 18-70<br>

Another vote for the 18-70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If having f/2.8 isn't a huge deal for you, I would also suggest this one. The best part is you can get a used one for around $200 and it has ED glass.<br>

One thing to note about the 18-70 is that it was one of Nikon's earlier AFS lenses and it doesn't focus super fast. But that is about the only con of the lens, otherwise it is an excellent lens especially for the price.</p>

<p>18-70 or 18-105VR. To me the best "bang for the bucks" lenses. With a slight edge to the 18-105 actually. It is new about the same price as what second hand 18-70's go for. Optically they're bloody close, while VR can be a very nice addition.<br />Another great option: 18-55VR and a 55-200VR, as Shuo mentioned.</p>

<p>as we don't know what type of photography you enjoy, i can only recommend a standard lens which should be good for most situations. the 1.8/35mm would be an excellent choice on the 1/2 frame sensor. zoom lenses are medium speed lenses, at best.</p>

<p>i was in a simmilar situation as you - my dslr with kit lens was stolen in the beginning of a 4 moths trip in South America - all i had left was FM10 and f/1.8 50mm for the rest of the trip. i was frustrated at first but stuck with it and having a prime only changed the way i see images in the world. now i only have 50mm and 28 mm lenses. i would strongly recommend the 50mm (f1.8 or f1.4) and give it a couple of months. all photos in this gallery http://www.mooostudios.com/Peru_Rural/peru_rural.htm were taken with f1.8 50mm.<br>

and if you really don't like it you can sell it without loosing much cash.</p>

<p>IMHO the best bang for the buck is the 18-70mm Nikkor. Not to slow, light and not to big. If I needed low light I would look at a Tamron 17-50 or go with a prime or two. If I wanted more range instead of speed I would look at the Nikkor 16-85mm. Since you are used to the 18-55mm plus 55-200mm you should have a good idea what is important to you. Its a slow setup but the range is great as well as the price. I think the build suffers but that is what you get for the price. I really liked the 18-70mm when I used DX. Currently I use a Tamron 28-75mm as a carry lens and a bunch of primes when I want the speed.</p>