Which one is the best for the D300 ?

[mauricio_orozco]

I am looking at 3 options, so in your opinion and base on your personal experience, which lens is the proper one for

my D300? ( I am not considering the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 because is out of my pocket ) :

> Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 AT-X PRO

> Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 SP XR DI II

> Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC EX

Please advise and thank you in advance for all your help.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you have one lens for the D300, the 18-200 is one of the best choices among consumer quality lenses.

[Rene11664880918]

My first choice would be Nikon 17-55, it is expensive but so is the camera, I think better glass is more important than

the body. since it is out of the question, for the many pictures I've seen I will suggest the Tamrom. I like how well the

Tokina is built but it has a slower AF system. The Sigma, I just don't know and some how I wouldn't feel so comfortable

buying any Sigma lenses.

 

If the 18-200 is the best match for a D300, Uhmm! Then there should be nothing wrong with the 24-120 as a kit lens for a

D700 but that is another topic!

 

Rene'

[Peter_in_PA]

I've heard bad things here on photo.net about the tokina, but good about the Tamron and Sigma. Thom Hogan has reviewed

the Tamron. I love the 18-200 but the OP was asking about faster 2.8 zooms, not slow super-zooms.

[eric_arnold]

i own and like the tamron, both for its IQ and portability.the tokina has a better build but fewer people seem to own them. the sigma seems to be taking up the rear, although the HSM model is probably the speediest.

[jose_rivera9]

I have the Sigma 18-50 and it has worked very well on my D50, D80, & D300. It is my workhorse lense. The color quality is excellent but it leans to the warm which isn't a problem. The autofocus is quick with little hunting and it has a good feel. Not cheap.

[frank]

I know these three lenses. My advice is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Its IQ is better than the Tokina's or the Sigma's (I mean the first version Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC EX without "MACRO"). When I compared pics that were made with the compact Tamron and with the much larger and far more expensive Canon IS USM 17-55/2.8 the results had been very, very similar.

Meanwhile my favourite standard combo for the D300 is the robust Tokina 12-24/4 (I've got a perfect sample) and the AF-Nikkor 50/1.8

[mauricio_orozco]

Frank, I also heard about the Tokina 12-24 f/4 being a great lens and probably in the future I will get it, but to cover the distance from 16(17or 18) to 55 mm, which lens do you suggest ? Still the Tamron f/2.8 ? Know also the 18-200 Nikon is a great lens but I have no interest on that lens because the shorter the distance the cover, the better the IQ and that is what I am looking for. I also own the Nikon 50 f/1.8, the Nikon 16-85 and the 70-300 VR but again, these are not f/2.8 so I am looking one that is f/2.8 to cover the middle distance. Please suggest !!

[bruce_margolis]

Maurico, I thought you asked this before and got the Tamron but didn't like it. At least the reviews I read seem to give this lens great marks. Given your three options here, I would still try to find a good Tamron copy.

[dan_brown4]

The Sigma (with the MACRO designation) is a very good lens, in my experience.

[joseph_wisniewski]

I've not shot the Tokina, but have pitted the Tamron against the Sigma. The Tamron won.

 

The new version of the Tamron (with built in motor) actually focuses slower on a D300 than the recently discontinued "screwdriver" version. You might want to look for an older on on the bay of 'e' or at KEH.

[frank]

Mauricio

 

"...but to cover the distance from 16(17or 18) to 55 mm, which lens do you suggest ? Still the Tamron f/2.8 ? Know also the 18-200 Nikon is a great lens but I have no interest on that lens because the shorter the distance the cover, the better the IQ and that is what I am looking for. Please suggest !!"

 

Yes, go for the Tamron 17-50/2.8 mm: good build quality, compact, fine optics and reasonable price.

BTW, as much as I like the VR-Nikkor 18-200 mm, the Sigma OS 18-200 is even a tad better (concerning lab figures, in practice they are on par). When I reviewed the Sigma I was absolutely astonished by its macro abilities (!). I have never seen before a macro image quality like this with a comparable zoomlens. Comparing a 17-50/2.8 mm with a 18-200/3,5-5.6(6.3) mm is a bit unfair, because using the 17-50 at f5.6 means using the lens at its probably best aperture.