Equivalent of Nikkor 18-200

<p>Hello:<br>

Can someone help with the equivalents, either in Tamron or Sigma, of Nikkor 18-200 VR lens. Also please share the price, experiences and the lens performance. I cannot afford Nikkor 18-200 VR.<br>

Please help.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Rad</p>

 

<p>Rad:<br>

Have you considered buying an 18-200VR on eBay? I have currently a 6 lens + (1) teledapter collection. My 300 f/4, 70-200 VR f/2.8, 17-55 f2.8 and 1.7 AF-s teledapter were all purchased used on eBay. That's over 1/2 of my collection<br>

They all look, feel, and work as new. I have an amazing array and not a single regret.</p>

<p>Thanks Tom. I live in India where eBay doesnt sell lenses. That said, I am looking for a third-party equivalent of Nikkor 18-200 VR, since Nikkor is too expensive for my budget.</p>

<p>Both Sigma and Tamron have equivalent lenses, the Tamron one goes even longer. Check them out here:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I have Tamron 18-200mm with built-in-motor version for Nikon and I liked it very much it's sharp and light weight and cheap too. The downfall *I* think is, it is slow ( f/6.3 at 200mm length ) sometimes in low-light and it does not have VR. If you are going to use it mainly in the day-light outdoor IMO this lens to get.<br>

This may help others too...</p>

 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="209">

<col width="95"></col> <col width="114"></col>

<tbody>

<tr height="18">

<td width="95" height="18">Focal Length </td>

<td width="114">Widest Aperture </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">18mm </td>

<td > f3.5 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">25mm </td>

<td > f3.8 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">28mm </td>

<td > f4.0 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">32mm </td>

<td > f4.2 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">38mm </td>

<td > f4.5 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">48mm </td>

<td > f4.8 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">52mm </td>

<td > f5.0 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">65mm </td>

<td > f5.3 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">75mm </td>

<td > f5.6 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="17">

<td height="17">105mm </td>

<td > f6.0 </td>

</tr>

<tr height="18">

<td height="18">150mm </td>

<td > f6.3 </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>So if you under 75mm during indoor/low-light shooting you should be good, I guess.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550952-REG/Tamron_AF014NII_700_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_XR_Di_II.html</p>

<p>I hope it helps,<br /> Ray Gosalia</p>

<p>Depending on the camera you have, a better alternative might be the Nikkor 18-70 or 18-105 or 18-135. The problem with the third party lenses is that f6.3 is way too slow for AF in any but the very best lighting. A used (or even new) 18-70 is quite affordable, balances well and is just an awesome little lens.</p>

<p>I've played with the Tamron 18-270, and even at 270 in crappy light the autofocus worked really well. I was surprised. The VC was nothing short of amazing, I got sharp photos at 270 and 1/15th-1/30th.<br /> <br /> If I had to choose, I would go with the Tamron.</p>

<p>Unfortunately Tamron is also the most expensive third party alternative. For a reason it seems, but still.<br>

Photozone.de rated it equal / tad better than Canon 18-200 IS. Sample shots are not bad at all considering the immense focal range.</p>