I love photography, I do it just as a hobby, I have a D5000 with the 18-55 VR lens, I'm in the market for a lens that I can use everyday. I don't want to be carrying around 2 lenses. I was considering the Sigma 18-200 OS, or should I get the 55-200 VR from Nikon?
Everyday lens with a D5000 (Or Any DX Camera)?
(59 posts) (30 voices)-
Same here... what lens can be used for everyday use
Posted 3 years ago # -
I haven't tried either lens, but I will tell you from experience with the Nikon 18-200 I think you will be disappointed with the Sigma 18-200. The sigma being f3.5-6.3 is worse then the nikon. If you get the 55-200 and just want to carry that I think you will miss the 18-55 range especially when you want to take anything landscape. If you combine the 55-200 with the one you already have then that would probably be the best option if you don't want to spend lots of money.
Honestly it will be a little bit of a pain to have the 2 lenses, but I think you will get better results out of the 18-55 and 55-200 then the 18-200 sigma.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Others on here proabably have more input in the 2 lenses so I will leave it up to them. The Sigma might be usable, but I wouldn't expect it to take better pictures then what you would get with the other kit lenses that nikon makes. I think the f6.3 is a real downer for the Sigma especially in low light.
Posted 3 years ago # -
in the film days most peoples "everyday lens" was the 50mm (equivalent to 35mm dx FOV) many also lived with the 35mm (= 24mm ) so the 18-55 is actually a great "everyday lens" as it covers the 24-35mm range and more! The real question is what do YOU find lacking in the 18-55 that makes YOU want a different lens.
55-200 as an "everyday lens" is not for "everyone" although for some people it might well be. I myself could shoot all day with my 150 F2.8 macro lens and be totally happy but thats me. I could also shoot all day with a 28mm prime too but then again thats me(those are my 2 fav focal lengths on DX.
The 18-55 that you have is a great everyday lens. but the answer for shuagster may be different to the answer for allen1013. I have the 18-200 its a great lens for a beginner to help them find their fav focal lengths as its likely to cover it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What kind of photography do you like to do? My everyday lens is a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that I've really enjoyed. That 18-55 is what I'd keep, but I rarely have a need for telephoto. Have you considered getting a flash instead? They can make a huge difference if you do a lot of stuff inside.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
Jonnyapple and iDunno: i want a lens for all around use, sports, nature, indoors, portraits, etc. That is why I was considering the Sigma 18-200, but I'm leaning towards getting the Nikkor 55-200 for extended focal length cause I'm a little skeptic about getting another brand other than Nikon. So unless someone convinces me that the Sigma is an awesome lens, I'll probably get the Nikon.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hi shuagster.. The 55-200 is NOT an all round lens. you will need the 18-55 as well.
Some people say that Sigma's 18-200 is better optically than my 18-200 Nikkor. I might have got the Sigma if it was available when I bought the 18-200.
Any 18-200 is not going to do everything very well. There are compromises in all lenses. These Large range lenses compromise on Aperture Speed and on IQ. So they don't do very well indoor or with indoor sports or events/theaters. Thats why there are Hundreds of lenses. Some are specialist lenses where compromises don't effect its intended purpose.
What is Good about these "Jack of all trades" lenses is that you get to find out what you like best. So, I would recommend the 18-200 (whichever brand) to a new photographer. After shooting a few thousand shots with it you will know what your fav focal lengths are and where you feel constrained by it. You will also start to find out what your fav subjects are. Then you can start looking for specific specialist lenses that meet YOUR true requirements.
Posted 3 years ago # -
shuagster said:
Jonnyapple and iDunno: i want a lens for all around use, sports, nature, indoors, portraits, etc. That is why I was considering the Sigma 18-200, but I'm leaning towards getting the Nikkor 55-200 for extended focal length cause I'm a little skeptic about getting another brand other than Nikon. So unless someone convinces me that the Sigma is an awesome lens, I'll probably get the Nikon.That's not going to happen, there isn't a lens that does all of that extremely well. We'd all like a lens like that, but it just doesn't happen. You've described both the 70-200 VR and the 24-70 VR in your description, especially when you want to shoot portraits, indoors and sports. The 18-200 won't cut it at all, especially if you have a small budget. The good thing is though with your D5000, if you're willing to bump ISO, you might get reasonable results, but don't expect pro level lens performance.
The 18-55 is actually a reasonable everyday lens. If you can live with a fixed focal length, the 35mm 1.8 may be your answer, but you should try it out first.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What about the 16-85mm VR lens or the 24-85 that has macro. They don't go as long as the other, but are built a bit more solid.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have the Nikon 18-200 and have been quite happy with it, but as someone else stated the wider the zoom range of a lens, the less effective it is at either extreme. It is a little soft at 200, but on your camera that is the equivalent of 300mm, which is pretty good for most wildlife, especially with the VR. The other limitation is that it is not so sharp wide open,as long as you shoot above f7 or so and don't zoon all the way out, its a great do-all travel lens, especially if you only want one.
Posted 3 years ago # -
shuagster said:
Jonnyapple and iDunno: i want a lens for all around use, sports, nature, indoors, portraits, etc. That is why I was considering the Sigma 18-200, but I'm leaning towards getting the Nikkor 55-200 for extended focal length cause I'm a little skeptic about getting another brand other than Nikon. So unless someone convinces me that the Sigma is an awesome lens, I'll probably get the Nikon.No such thing, one lens does it all and does it well does not exist.
You will have to go for compromise.
I would personally go for 55-200 and 35 f/1.8 for indoors and low light.Posted 3 years ago # -
My personal (D3000) walk-around kit is a Sigma 10-20, Nikkor 35/1.8, and the Nikkor 55-200VR. It's very light and covers most things you may encounter. Also have 18-55VR, I just don't use it much for fun shooting. Hey, if you want "just one lens" try the 18-105VR (or the 18-200VR if you have the extra $). But you know the old phrase "Jack of all trades - master of none."
My work kit (D300) is Nikkor 12-24/4, 17-55/2.8, 105/2.8VR and 70-300/4.5-5.6VR (I won't carry any of those unless I'm getting paid.)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Now I'm having second thoughts... I need to know what is best for me (a recreational photographer), the 18-105 or the combination of the 18-55 and the 55-200, and although I'm leaning towards the 18-105 because I wouldn't have to carry around 2 lenses, I'm still considering the other option, can anyone tell me which is the better option, that's all I want to know.
Posted 3 years ago # -
so get the 18-200vrII from Nikon
Posted 3 years ago # -
It really depends on you and how you shoot. 18-105 is a nice single carry everywhere lens. I went for a couple of trips only with the 18-70 and that was fine. so 18-105 gives you a bit more range and VR as well. the 18-55 is a nice general lens which you can use for most situations. together with the 55-200 you get a nice general tele zoom which you can use for most occasions. It really depend on you. do you want a single lens that doest most things or 2 lenses that does more things? I went for the 18-200 after my 18-70. Its a great lens but not as sharp. I dont think its as sharp as the 18-55 or the 55-200 but its not bad. If you are a person who will shoot wide then tele then wide again then the 18-200 is great. I am like that but I want sharper images so I now carry 2 cameras one with 12-24 and the other with the 150 macro. I just got back from an afternoon of shooting with only the 150 macro prime and a 1.4tc.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hi guys I am also new to D 5000 bought recently. I was off to Himachal on a holiday with family and had a great time clicking away however with the 18-55 lens that came as a package, I found two limitations: I could not zoom a distant object very easily and also the wide and beautiful landscapes of Himalaya ranges could be captured only to some limited width... please suggest which other lens should I add?
I am thinking of NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR which is coming for RS 10000-12000 that is roughly my budget.
I also have an offer to exchange my 18-55 lens with a 18-105 lens and the shopkeeper will buy it back for Rs. 5000 and will give me the 18-105 for about Rs. 12000 ( I hope I remember the deal correctly)
Please help
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ditto what I said in the other thread... .. :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
hello i would like to know between Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (Optical Stabilizer) HSM Zoom Super Wide Angle Lens or Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G Zoom Normal-Telephoto ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Autofocus Lens
which one is better for wedding and candid??
my body is d5000..please help me..
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm no expert, but I'd say I hope you're not the official photographer at a wedding if you don't know what the answer is to your lens needs - no offense intended.
The 70 to 200 on a D5000 is like a 105-300 on a 35mm film or full frame digital so will not give you the coverage you will need. Whatever lens you get needs to start at 18mm or even less (remember that 18mm on a D5000 is 27mm equivalent). The 200 (300) end will not get used as much as the short end and mid range at weddings. If I only had one lens for a wedding it would be the 35mm f1.8G due to the kind of shots you are most likely to take (outside and in the reception where you would likely need some speed.
Like I said, I am no expert and there are plenty here so hold on one will be along in a moment...
HTH.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hey, i just shot a friends wedding intensively last week with a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and it was GREAT.
This is after 2 years of using the 18-55.
The slightly increased range was very noticeable and the faster lens often came in handy.
While i have not done any lens tests, subjectively it looks great.
Plus 2 weeks after i got it, the lens won a TIPA award for "best entry level lens" which made me pretty happy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
shuagster said:
Jonnyapple and iDunno: i want a lens for all around use, sports, nature, indoors, portraits, etc. That is why I was considering the Sigma 18-200, but I'm leaning towards getting the Nikkor 55-200 for extended focal length cause I'm a little skeptic about getting another brand other than Nikon. So unless someone convinces me that the Sigma is an awesome lens, I'll probably get the Nikon.Nikon makes an 18-200 as stated. As to a great walkaround I find the 24-70mm or 35-70mm f/2.8 the best you can get for what I need. Then again I'm still waiting for that 28-200mm, Nikon!
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
