Superzooms – Can I get some advice?

[tjw_78]

I have recently got myself a D90. I currently have 2 lenses. Nikons 35mm f1.8, which is great, and an old kit lens from my Dad which is a 35-80mm, which is not very good.

I am looking at getting a superzoom, to replace the 35-80 and take away on holiday with me. Something to use as a travel/take everywhere lens.

I’ve been drawn towards the Sigma 18-125mm which seems to have good reviews, and given the relatively short focal length, isn’t too compromised optically. Its also pretty cheap.

However, I’m trying to work out if it would be worth me saving a little more and going for a Nikon 18-200mm or the Sigma 18-250mm, both of which also have good reviews.

In the very long term, I would be looking to get a 300mm or even 400mm lens as I enjoy motor sport photography, but if I’m honest I rarely get the chance, and this will probably be a v.long way off.

Thanks,
Tim

[chris-p]

Hi Tim

The Sigma 18-125 got a good review in AP recently when they compared it to the Nikon 18-105. There was little difference optically but they though the build of the Sigma was slightly better.

Personally, I'd avoid the 18-200+ zooms. I don't see the point in investing in an interchangeable lens camera and then having one, not very good, lens.

You could always supplement the 18-125mm with a 70-300mm lens which would give you a decent range of focal length which should cover all the bases.

[tjw_78]

Thanks Chris,

That is exactly what I thought, and a 70-300mm would be next on my list, probably next year. Having an 18-200 and a 70-300 seems like unnecessary overlap.

Does anyone have a sigma 18-125mm? Do you rate it? Does it live on your camera, or at the back of the draw?!

Tim

[tjw_78]

Does anyone have a sigma 18-125mm? Do you rate it? Does it live on your camera, or at the back of the draw?!

[chris-p]

As I said above, I have the Nikon 18-105 (not the Sigma 18-125) and it doesn't live on my camera. The 35mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 get more use but it's a very useful everyday lens.

[OldBoy]

I would go for the Nikon 70-300 F4.5-5.6 VR as it's one of the best zooms on the market at only £418. I have the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR and it's always on my camera, usually with the 1.4 converter, as a walkabout lens.

[greenwing]

I'd recommend the Nikon 18-105 over the Sigma 18-125. It's a bit cheaper, probably similar optical quality, and sure to be compatible with future Nikon cameras, something you can't always be sure of with Sigmas.

If you want to spend a bit more on a better lens, the Nikon 16-85 is a gem. Then save and add the 70-300 VR, and you have a great 2-lens kit.

Chris

[tjw_78]

I'd heard the Nikon 18-105 wasn't great. It would have been the kit lens with the D90 but I didn't bother at the time.

No matter, I've ordered the Sigma 18-125 now. I think it will do me fine for now and matches my budget. Nikon 70-300 for Christmas, hopefully!!!

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by tjw_78

I'd heard the Nikon 18-105 wasn't great. It would have been the kit lens with the D90 but I didn't bother at the time.

Optically there is was no difference between the Nikkor or the Sigma. The Sigma is slightly better built. Having said that, I've never had anything to complain about with the Nikkor 18-105mm.

You won't be disappointed with the Sigma...

[tjw_78]

I get the impression, that with some exceptions, kit is so good these days that theres no huge point in stessing about it. Some is better than others, true, but you'd be hard pressed to end up with something rubbish!

Thanks for the advice.