Help choosing a lens

[marika_vreeling]

I am looking for advice on whether to purchase a Tamron or Sigma lens for my

Nikon D50 camera. I have a Nikon 18-55mm lens and a Nikon 55-200mm lens, and I

am forever changing lenses when I am doing portraits with friends. I thought

maybe I should buy a lens with a wide range of focal lengths, and the Nikon

18-200mm lens is about $850, too much for this amateur to justify at this point.

Can anyone give advice about whether these two brands are reliable, quality

lenses. Would anyone suggest not buying either of these?

 

Thanks for any suggestions or advice!

[JDMvW]

Just a suggestion for another direction. If you're doing mostly portrait work, consider a 50mm prime lens. At least some models are very inexpensive and the image quality will be much better than you'll get from even expensive 28-80mm sort of range. On a reduced size sensor camera it will be a short telephoto of the sort commonly called "portrait" lenses. If you must have a zoom, then consider something like the latter sort of lens, however.

[freddie_kelvin]

I'm in a similar situation (Nikon 18-70 and 55-200 (non VR), except that I also have a wide-angle (12-24 Tokina. I'd like to get a multipurpose lens ($700 or less) to reduce three lenses to two-both to save lens changes and to fit my very portable, smaller bag. I'm an enthusiastic beginner (D50)most interested in landscapes and people. I have several questions:

1. Is a multipurpose lens a reasonable way to go?

2. If yes, is there any loss in the optics vs. current lenses?

3. What is the most appropriate zoom for my needs? I'm thinking about the Sigma 18-200 with OS ($550)?

4. Are third party lenses close in quality to the Nikkon 18-200 VR?

[jobo1]

I had the Tamron 18-250, and would buy it again. It's great for holidays, small and light, and has the best image quality of the off-brand superzooms (very similar to the kit lenses mentioned above, slightly below the Nikon 18-200). If you want to use the long end, you need good light or to get the Sigma with OS.

 

For portraits, I've got another Tamron, 28-75/2.8. You already have these focal lengths 'covered' but if the zoom range works for you too (try it), it gives you more options in terms of aperture choice and low-light capability.

[ruud_van_de_laar]

Hi,

 

The $850 lens you mention is a VR (vibration reduction) lens and

therefore so expensive.

Why not go for the normal Nikon, Sigma or Tamron 18-200, 28-200

lenses without VR, I now you can get these for between $400 and $500 new.

For details and differences between these lenses, you can google

for Months, but I'm sure you can get a decent zoom for a reasonable

price.

I do agree with one of the previous guys that the quality of a prime

lens is even better, but of course without the flexibility of a zoom.

I use antique AIS lenses like 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 for portraits

and that is a real cheap workaround.

[freddie_kelvin]

I finally decided to shell out the extra cash ($700 vs $550 for Sigma), and ordered the Nikon 18-200 VR. Tamron doesn't yet have VR in this zoom range.I think the VR will be useful in low light when I don't have a tripod. Whether the Nikon is truly better than the Sigma 18-200 OS is obviously debatable; but it gets rave reviews and less uncertainty surrounds it.

Thanks for all your help; I've learned a lot from your comments even if I didn't necessarily take your advice.

 

Freddie K.

[seismiccwave]

>>I am forever changing lenses when I am doing portraits with friends<<

 

I shoot a lot of portraits in my studio. I use a wonderful zoom called my legs. Why do you

want to change lens when you can take a few steps closer or a few steps farther away?

 

I have a few Canon L zooms. 24 to 70 mm L and 70 to 200 mm IS L. I don't use either one

when I shoot portraits. I prefer to use my 85 mm prime or 50 mm prime.