Good midrange zoom to replace broken 18-70?

[josh_gilreath]

<p>Hello everyone!<br>

I am looking for a decent and inexpensive midrange zoom lens to replace my broken Nikor 18-70. I've thought about replacing it with the same thing, but before I do I'd like a few suggestions on some other options. I really need to keep the budget under $400 otherwise id get the 14-24 f2.8 nikkor.<br>

So what im considering so far are the Nikon 18-70, Sigma 18-50 f2.8, Nikon 18-35, or any other third party options that have similar specs.<br>

My primary use for these lenses aside from everything would be weddings and portraits. Low light performance would be nice, but sharpness would be more of a necessity, as i already have a 50 1.8 and an 80-200 2.8.<br>

Thanks for any suggestions or input!<br>

Josh</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>Newer 16/85if I could have but one.</p>

<p>Nikon lenses are under warrantee for 5 years in USA if you registered it properly. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>I'm trying the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 HSM Macro now and I'm actually rather impressed considering it's in the under $400 bracket.</p>

[AlexandruD]

<p>Why you not consider Tamron 17-50 2.8 too? Is a great lens fot the money you have to pay for.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Don't buy the 18-35 unless you plan on shooting stopped down to at least f/5.6 all the time.</p>

[travishoover]

<p>I have the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 HSM, and have been very happy with it. I feel it is sharp and fast to focus. Got it 2nd hand from somebody here. I also know that Eric Arnold likes his Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and 28-75 f2.8, and the photos I have seen from Eric with those two lenses have been rather impressive. All within your budget...</p>

[User_1891539]

<p>The 18-35 is a fine lens, always gave me good results. But I missed the reach of the 18-70.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>thanks travis. not sure what body the OP is using, but (surprise,surprise) i say go for the tamron 17-50. its comparable in weight and size to the 18-70 but it gets much sharper much quicker. shaving 20mm off the long end is insignificant compared to constant 2.8.</p>

<p>from my most recent 17-50 outing...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ok that was natural light. here's a flashed shot:</p>

<p>Edit, whoops, wrong lens. that was a 30/1.4 at f/2</p><div></div>

[joe_a2]

<p>Josh.... I'd vote for a used 18-70 for about $225 from a reputable Seller on e Bay or locally through Craig$list.</p>

[josh_gilreath]

<p>Thanks for the input guys! That 17-50 f2.8 looks pretty good. And for reference it would be used on a combination of a D200 body and a D70.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>here's a flashed 17-50 shot...</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>josh g: on those two bodies, the constant 2.8 would really come in handy, since both are challenged at anything over ISO 800. i have actually rarely used my 18-70 since i got the two tamrons, but i'm holding on to it since, well, you never know...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it's a very good lens, but it's a little more than $400. The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is right around $400 and is comparable to the Tamron. With the HSM motor it may even focus faster than the Tamron. I bought the Tamron because it was at the time less expensive than the Sigma and had a longer warranty, not because it was better.<br>

The Sigma 17-70 HSM is also a good choice.</p>

[jorish]

<p>Another vote for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It might not be the absolute best, but IMHO it's the most bang-for-your-buck, and the constant f/2.8 is really nice.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I had and enjoyed a 18-70mm when I used a D200. Its a nice range but a bit slow for wedding or event photography IMHO. If you are doing weddings I would look closely at a 17-50mm f2.8 type of zoom. If you really don't need the speed then I would get another 18-70mm or for greater range a 16-85mm zoom.</p>

[stank]

<p>I may also be in the market for a lens around this range. Just curious but what about the 18-105 or the 18-135? Other than the plastic mount, I've heard good things about them.<br>

Stan</p>