So I've decided on the Nikon D80 and now I'm considering lenes. I really like the extra zoom and Macro ability I would get from the Tamron (or Sigma) 18-200mm lenes over the 18-135mm Nikon kit lens. Other than a quiter AF, are there any other advantages to the 18-135mm? Does it work better because it was made specifically for Nikons? How much louder are non silent wave lenes? Are there differences in AF speed?
If there are other lenes I should be considering, I'd love to know about them. And, no, although it would be nice, I can't afford the Nikon 18-200mm VR!!
Thanks.
2007-09-02 02:41:20 · 6 answers · asked by lots-a-questions 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
The quality of the optics is the big issue here. The reason pros use Nikons and Canons isn't because of the electronics and features, but the quality of the lenses made by those companies. If you've invested in a Nikon, turning around and putting Vivitar/Tokina/Sigma glass on it is really self-defeating. The operative philosophy is "skimp on the camera (buy used etc) and spend on the glass"
Nikon zooms are much higher quality than Sigma or Tamron lenses of equivalent range- you'll have far fewer problems with distortion, flare, etc. Prior to the introduction of the amazing (and expensive) 18-200mm VR, having that much range in one lens wasn't such a hot thing... The convenience of going from wide to tele was offset by the lens being much less sharp than zooms of more limited range, like 18-55 and 80-200.
Tamron does make one very nice telephoto zoom (I think its a 200-500), but even it doesn't compare to Nikon or Canon.
One downside to Nikon's kit lenses is durability. They're all plastic construction compared to the more expensive Nikon lenses with metal mounts. So if you subject them to heavy use or lots of harsh shooting conditions, they won't last. But for occasional shooting and even studio work, they're fine. Most kit lenses aren't very fast, and the 70-300G is downright slothlike.
See the lens recommendation section of Ken Rockwell's D80 review below. Good luck!
2007-09-02 03:39:41 · answer #1 · answered by C-Man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Sigma 18-200 is okay, but for that price, I would really save up for the Nikon 18-200. The Nikon 18-200 is what I use 99% of the time which cuts down on the expense of buying additional lenses. It covers every shooting situation that I come across. Prices have dropped quite a bit on the Nikon lens. Amazon now sells them for $744 vs. the $829 they were last week. New lenses are coming out within the next month so prices of current lenses will drop. Same goes for cameras. The D3 and D300 will be out soon as well so you may be able to get a better deal on the D80 after those are out.
I have a Sigma lens and it's just alright. Focusing is loud and slow as are all the Sigma and Tamron lenses. Whatever lens you decide on, use it and get to know everything that it does. A good photographer can make an amazing photograph with just about any equipment.
2007-09-02 03:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by tigerrrgrrl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what kind of picture are you goint to take?
The Tamron seems fine, but the tele end is a little bit slow at f6.3. Otherwise...
Well I've heard some bad news about the 18-135 (distortion, slow AF) so you might want to stay clear from that.
Do you need the lens real fast? Because, since a lens is a great investment anyway, I think you'd better end up with the 18-200 VR. If you can't afford it right now, you can save up until you can afford it.
If you want to shoot macro real fast, then the Tamron it is.
Of course, it's just me.
2007-09-02 03:32:42 · answer #3 · answered by dodol 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have the 18-135. It is a pretty good lens for travel and general shooting. It is not good for architecture, due to distortion at the wide end. But my sample is sharp, and not a great deal of CA. I have even shot a couple of outdoor weddings with this lens. It is not fast enough for indoor use. Well, fine for family use and snapping, not good enough for low light weddings.
I have a Tamron 19-35mm that is a pretty decent lens. I used to have a Tamron 28-200 that was a poor performer. I gave it to my daughter, who ran over it with a car. (An accident, I assume...) Sigma I have never cared for.
I would say for the price, the 18 - 135 is a pretty good lens, although not the very best available.
2007-09-02 15:28:41 · answer #4 · answered by Ara57 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tamron and Quantaray (made by Tamron) are coke bottles.
I guess zooms are the way to go now, but anyone who has been in photography for a time knows that straight glass, non-zooms, are better, faster.
I shoot zooms for convenience sometime, but I prefer straight glass.
The difference between zooms and straight glass are really noticeable in projection glass where you can easily measure such things as color fringing, contrast, and clarity.
If you are a hobby photographer, then aftermarket lenses will be OK, but I don't recommend them for professionals.
2007-09-02 05:05:17 · answer #5 · answered by Polyhistor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tamron 135mm
2016-12-12 11:20:54 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Make a decision not to turn into one of those party people who drink all the time and get intimate with guys. Make a decision to be a positive and sweet individual. Be safe...Love you sis. <3
2016-03-17 22:12:43 · answer #7 · answered by April 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋