Nikon 18-135mm vs 18-105mm vs Sigma 18-200mm

[armen_hovannisian]

<p>I have a Nikon D60,<br>

Which one should I get to upgrade my 18-55mm and why?<br>

And is the Nikon 18-135mm worth the $ ?<br>

Thanks</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Only lens? I bet the 18-105 would be great, but I won't buy a lens with a plastic mount myself (more because of the chintzing on other internal components than the plastic mount itself).</p>

<p>Why do you need to upgrade? Do you need more speed? more reach? How big do you print? What do you NOT like about the 18-55? Need to answer those questions first.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Armen,</p>

<p>I would say that you would be wasting your money to purchase a lens that overlaps your current focal length range. I am assuming that you want more length (zoom) out of the lens, so I will make my suggestions based solely on this aspect. </p>

<p>Optically, the lenses you have mentioned perform equally well.</p>

<p>Here's my suggestion:</p>

<p>Keep your 18-55mm...there's no reason to spend money to cover the same focal lengths you already have.</p>

<p>Spend your money on one of the following lenses:</p>

<p><strong>55-200 VR (MSRP 249.95)</strong> - Compliments your 18-55 perfectly. You don't overlap focal lengths and you get a little extra length out of the lens. I suggest the VR version for the practicality of hand holding the lens at 200mm </p>

<p><strong>70-300 VR (MSRP 589.95)</strong> - Higher build quality of this lens coupled with the fact that it will cover a full frame (FX) format DSLR justifies the higher price. This is the best tele-zoom lens you can get from Nikon for under $1000.</p>

<p>I would also suggest looking at a 35mm f/1.8 for your camera. It's just a suggestion, and it is not a zoom lens, but it is great for low light, focuses very fast, and doesn't cost a whole lot. If you want to build your photographic skills, I would definitely suggest getting this lens as well.</p>

[armen_hovannisian]

<p>my lens fell so it keaps coming off...... i need more zoom and little more quality. thanks</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Consider the 18-70 f3.5-4.5, used it's VERY affordable and has great image quality.</p>

<p>If you can afford the 16-85 VR, that's even better, but it's probably about more than twice the price of the 18-70 used.</p>

[armen_hovannisian]

<p>Peter<br>

the zoom of the 18-70mm is not enough for me.</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>My wife uses a 18-135 on her D90. She likes it because it is fairly light weight. If you are planning to just buy one lens and using it all the time, I would shoot for something in the 18 to 200-270 range so I would have the reach even if it were at the expense of a little sharpness. I would then put my money on a more specialized lens for whatever type of photography I found myself enjoying the most.</p>

<p>HLA</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Armen, if you want more than 18-70, then optically the 18-105VR is best. The extra length of a 18-135 or even 18-200 sounds impressive, but the difference isn't all that big, and the 18-105 has VR, which can be very useful. On a budget, that would be the nicest choice.<br>

However, the nice things about DSLRs is that you can use more than one lens. Combining the 18-70 (which indeed can be found cheap, is built well and optically very nice) or the 18-55VR with a 55-200VR or 70-300VR for the extra reach is not a bad idea.</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>Wouter, what you say is very likely correct but not for me. I do most of my shooting at the 100+ end and just like the 18 for the occasional times I can't get far enough away from something to get it all in. I use the tele mainly for isolating elements in a scene but there are often times I either can't get close enough or don't want to take the time to get close enough for a shorter lens. At some time in the near future I hope to get a fast 70-200 to use for my 'walk around lens' and just carry a 18-55 kit lens in my pocket for the times I need the wide angle. </p>

<p>HLA</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i would just get the 55-200mm VR and the 18-55mm kit lens (non-VR) in your pocket. this way you are saving until you get the 70-200mm later.......also this way, if you realize later that 70-x00mm is not really a "walkaround" lens, you are not out too much and can get a better combo of lenses for your needs.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Homer, I guess we were already saying the same? My advice is to split the 18-200 range in 2 lenses...and it seems your advice/upgradepath too? I just presented it as a 2-stage approach in case the budget is tight.<br>

Sure you should put the money where your interest is, but since the OP is replacing a 18-55, something 18-xxx would seem to come first?</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>ooppsss!<br>

and armen to get back to you, the 18-105mm is better than the 18-135mm in image quality. my brother has the former that i have used several times; and the latter i have borrowed from a friend to try out. even the built is better. not to mention the VR.</p>

[homer_arment1]

<p>Wouter, I think we are saying similar things. The way I read the OP's post made me think he was looking for a single lens solution. When I bought my first DSLR I was concerned about getting dust on the sensor during lens changes so I opted for a 28-300 zoom. If this is the OP's concern the single lens solution might be best for him. He could sell the 18-55 and recoup a little money or he could go with a two lens solution and learn how to clean the sensor (it really isn't too hard to do). My wife is one who doesn't want to switch lenses so she wanted the widest zoom that she could easily carry. In her case it turned out to be the 18-135 and she is quite happy with it (and she still refuses to switch lenses).</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>This could use some explanation...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my lens fell so it keaps coming off......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>-AND-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i need more zoom and little more quality. thanks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How often do you shoot at the wide end?</p>

 

[bmm]

<p>If your 18-55 was not always 'falling off' and hadn't been dropped I would agree totally with getting a 55-200 as its natural complement.</p>

<p>In your circumstances I think the best bet is the 18-70 and then the 70-300 for the long end. Quality wise these are the best before you get into the expensive pro glass.</p>

<p>If you only want one lens and no lens changes it then the 18-200 is your pick - I used to have one and its a pretty handy tool.</p>

<p>I must say though I am always fascinated by the fear people have of lens changes and sensor dust. Why get an SLR if you don't use its most basic feature which is interchangeable glass? I shoot only with prime lenses and would easily do 5 or 6 lens changes in an hour, often in exposed, dusty/sandy and windy conditions. I'd clean my lenses about once a month, my sensor about once a quarter (though often this is routine rather than necessary), and only twice in almost 3 years have I had to deal with a dust spot in post processing. Overall I have to tell you guys its really not a big deal.</p>

[armen_hovannisian]

<p>Thanks everyone.<br>

I really need the wide angle.<br>

I think Ill go with the 18-105.</p>

[pekka_lilja]

<p>18-105 is a good choice! I purchased D90 and did some research about 18-55, 18-105, 18-135, 18-200 and other zoom lenses and ended up to 18-105. It has decent image quality and vignetting compared to other lenses with good prize.<br>

-Pekka Lilja</p>