18-200 lens for Nikon D40

[jimbear14]

I am ready to purchase an 18-200mm lens for my Nikon D40 (so it needs to have the motor in the lens). I would prefer OS but would take non if the deal is good enough.

So, where is my best deal going to be? I'm open to Sigma, Tamrac and Nikon brands.
THANKS!

[kyzen]

My buddy picked up a Sigma 18-200mm OS very recently and has been loving it. It's about half the cost of the Nikon 18-200mm VR, though it's a little slower (The Nikon @ 200mm can get f/5.6, whereas his Sigma is f/6.3 at 200mm). When looking at other brands, be sure that you check that it'll autofocus with your D40 - my friend didn't, but got lucky because the Sigma 18-200mm worked.

Also, unless you really see yourself needing the 18-55mm range on the lens, you could save some cash and pick up the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens, and just use your kit lens (I assume you have one) for those wide angle shots.

[phlllpy]

I recently went through the same decision and in the end opted for the Sigma 18-200 OS. The price was right and the lens seems great so far. I got it from Abe's of Maine that you can get 3% Live CB with and use coupon code LOYALTY10 for another $10 off. This made the lens just $349 - 10 = $339 - 3% = $330.

I was using a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens before it for the mid-range zoom and I much prefer the Sigma 18-200 OS solution as the pictures seem just as good and I don't need to switch lenses when something is up close.

My father used to use a Tamron 18-200 non-stabilized (VC) version on his Canon and hated it dearly. My close friend has the Nikon 18-200 VR and it is good, but I really don't think it is worth $300 more than my Sigma (maybe $50 more for the red VR logo on the side).

[kyzen]

My father used to use a Tamron 18-200 non-stabilized (VC) version on his Canon and hated it dearly. My close friend has the Nikon 18-200 VR and it is good, but I really don't think it is worth $300 more than my Sigma (maybe $50 more for the red VR logo on the side).

But the logo is so great! ;)

As I said before, if you can make do with the 55-200 VR lens, it's clearly the cheaper option.

I've also been satisfied with Tamron quality overall for my Canon Rebel XSi - I just picked up a 2x Tamron teleconverter last week, and am expecting a 70-300mm Tamron lens this friday, so I'm totally on board with the brand.

Again, the only thing I'd hesitate on if I were in your shoes, other than the price, is the aperature size difference - if you're going to be taking shots of quick-moving subjects, with less than ideal lighting, where your flash won't work (say, birds, sports, etc), you'll want as much light as possible for your shot, in which case the Nikon lens is going to be slightly better (not too much though, as the difference is rather small).

However if you're confident in your subjects ability to remain stationary, or you have plenty of light available, then the Tamron is an excellent alternative to the Nikon.

[phlllpy]

But the logo is so great! ;)

As I said before, if you can make do with the 55-200 VR lens, it's clearly the cheaper option.

I've also been satisfied with Tamron quality overall for my Canon Rebel XSi - I just picked up a 2x Tamron teleconverter last week, and am expecting a 70-300mm Tamron lens this friday, so I'm totally on board with the brand.

Again, the only thing I'd hesitate on if I were in your shoes, other than the price, is the aperature size difference - if you're going to be taking shots of quick-moving subjects, with less than ideal lighting, where your flash won't work (say, birds, sports, etc), you'll want as much light as possible for your shot, in which case the Nikon lens is going to be slightly better (not too much though, as the difference is rather small).

However if you're confident in your subjects ability to remain stationary, or you have plenty of light available, then the Tamron is an excellent alternative to the Nikon.

And this is where I say how loyal I am to Sigma to confuse the guy even more. In truth I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 18-200 OS, and Sigma 70-300 APO and I swear by all three for such a bargain they all are. The three have completely replaced my Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 18-55mm, and Nikon 55-200 VR. The obvious recommendation would be to go to a local shop and try out the Sigma versus Tamron versus Nikon 18-200 and then see which one at least feels right for the price.

[jimbear14]

I will add that I already have the 18-55 and 55-200 nikkor lenses but I hate the constant switching of lenses. I want to be able to stick on lens on and head to an event. Yes, I like having other lenses for specific shooting items, but I need something easier when it's just a fun shoot, nothing fancy.

[troymclure]

I would try to pick up a genuine Nikkor maybe second hand on craigslist. I got mine for $350. Optical quality is gonna be sketchy with any lens that has such a large range of focal lengths, so you should try to get the best possible optics you can. A nikkor lens will be far superior to a cheap Sigma.

[phlllpy]

And this is where I say how loyal I am to Sigma to confuse the guy even more. In truth I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 18-200 OS, and Sigma 70-300 APO and I swear by all three for such a bargain they all are. The three have completely replaced my Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 18-55mm, and Nikon 55-200 VR. The obvious recommendation would be to go to a local shop and try out the Sigma versus Tamron versus Nikon 18-200 and then see which one at least feels right for the price.

I don't know if it is already "too late" but I take back what I said about the Sigma 18-200 OS. For the first week I had just tested it out indoors with some quick shots outside of nothing. But I finally took it out for some better tests and it had issues. MAJOR barrel distortion zoomed out and heavy vignetting (the latter is easily removed in post-processing, but is still annoying). I RMA'd the Sigma 18-200 OS (didn't think it was even worth it to keep on my more portable D40 since my other Nikkor lenses are better suited to it -and lighter). I also picked up the Nikon 18-200 VR for my D90 and while it is not perfect either, it is much better than the Sigma. I still love my Sigma EX 30mm 1.4 and 70-300mm APO, but I no longer have blind faith in the company.

[bricker85]

And this is where I say how loyal I am to Sigma to confuse the guy even more. In truth I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4, Sigma 18-200 OS, and Sigma 70-300 APO and I swear by all three for such a bargain they all are. The three have completely replaced my Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 18-55mm, and Nikon 55-200 VR. The obvious recommendation would be to go to a local shop and try out the Sigma versus Tamron versus Nikon 18-200 and then see which one at least feels right for the price.
Of those lenses you listed, the 30 1.4 is the only one that has great IQ. If you're comparing the Sigma 18-200 to the Nikkor 18-200 and can't see dramatic differences, you need glasses. What's the point in getting a DSLR if you degrade it with cheap glass? Spend the extra money and get the Nikkor.