which lens to buy 18-270 or 70-300

[zack_zoll]

<p>Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, the Nikon 70-300 VR is only worth buying for the gasketing, and if you also own a gasketed body. I feel the same about the 18-200. It's smoother and better-built than the Tamron 18-270 PZD, but I suspect that's because the lens doesn't need to travel as far. I'm definitely a Nikon guy, but I also appreciate the value of a dollar.</p>

<p>And Andy, that Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is fantastic at almost any price. If I had to throw out all my lenses but one today, that would be the one I kept.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Zack, about the 28-75 - I agree. Of course, this one isn't as good as its Nikon counterpart but it's not actually <em>that</em> much worse and you can buy it used for less money than a kit lens, so the real reason it's interesting is value per dollar. But, I don't want to start seeming <em>too</em> enthusiastic on 3rd party lenses, because there really are a lot that are pretty bad. You need to cherry pick them. For example, I have a friend who bought a Sigma kit lens - some sort of because he didn't want to spend for a Canon 18-55 lens (don't ask) and it's just awful. I think Sigma discontinued that lens in shame. But one step up from that they have that 17-70 lens, which is excellent.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I wouldn't worry about being into third party lenses Andy. I work at a photo store (technically an electronics store with a photo counter), and every single one of our employees but one owns that lens, in Nikon, Canon, and Sony mounts. Yes, the Nikon version is better. But it costs over three times as much new, and is probably only 110% the quality. I own the Nikon 70-200 VR I because it's much better than the Tamron non-VC version, but I won't be buying a Nikon 28-70 or 24-70 unless I get an absolutely phenominal deal on it. Frankly, it isn't nearly good enough to justify the price difference.</p>

[pankaj purohit]

<p>Hi Sanju, in my opinion you should consider these lenses too :<br /> 1. AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR (INR 20,000/-)<br /> 2. AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED (INR 12,000/-)<br /> 3. AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED (INR 10,000/-)</p>

<p>These all are Nikkors and good zoom lenses. The 55-300 is better looking to me. I recently bought D5100 and previously I used to shoot with Nikon film SLR and already have few AF lenses, one of those is - AF Zoom-NIKK0R 70-300mm f/4-5.6G, which is one of the cheapest lens available. If I talk about image quality, I always got great results with this cheap lens using with my film body, even I can compare the image quality with my 50mm 1.8 which is known as one of the sharpest lens available. Sharpness with 70-300 was really more than what I spend. I don' have much knowledge about technicalities of elements so can't tell much about that. Drawback of AF-70-300mm is that I can't auto focus this lens using with D5100, which doesn't has inbuilt focus motor, so planning to use this lens using manually for some time and considering to get a 55-300 later.</p>

<p>Whatever I observed reading different photographers at photo.net since I am member here, I think shorter zoom lenses like 3x-4x are more sharp at all the lengths than more zoom capable lenses 6x-10x which can produce softer results at smallest and longest lengths.</p>

<p>Link for a shot with AF-70-300mm G : <a href="../photo/7087896">http://www.photo.net/photo/7087896</a></p>

<p> </p><div></div>