choices, choices, please advise

hi there, I just got my D50 with kit lens a week ago, and I want something with more reach, but my budget is very limited, I whould also love to have the 50 f1.8, so please help me out on this one:

1) Sigma 70-300 APO macro + Nikkor 50 f1.8 = $ 300 (keep my kit lens)

2) Sigma 18-200 (is this any good?) + Nikkor 50 f1.8 + sell my 18-55 kit lens = $ 340-370

3) used Nikkor 70-210 f4.5-5.6 (non D version - D version is more than twice as expensive and only focusses faster) + Nikkor 50 f1.8 = $ 260 (keep my kit lens)

4) your alternative suggestion of a similair budget

(I was leaning towards the point where I wanted to convince myself to get the Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR, but that whould be insanity seeing my budget for the next 2 years - maybe after I finished university and started working)

thank you!!

Johannes

Keep kit lens. It's better than most "kit lenses".

50mmf/1.8 is really good. it was my second lens and a keep-hold lens

in the 18-200 range, I think it's worth saving up for Nikkor. However, it's not a must-have.

If I have to pick one out of the three choices you have listed, I would go for option # 1.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

I bought the D50 with the kit lens (18-55) and a 55-200. The biggest pain was the limited distance on the 18-55. If I wanted to shoot something close then far, I'd have to swap lenses. With kids, that's just not a reasonable thing to do. I bought the Sigma 18-200 and absolutely loved it. Sure there are limitations, but it's sharper than the 55-200 at around 100mm and it loses a little compared with the 55-200 at 200mm. But at 18mm, it's about the same as the 55-200 in details.

I did a comparison between the 18-55, 55-200, my Sigma 18-200. This was done about 6 months (and about 10,000 shutters ago), so I apologize in advance for the bad composition.
http://www.speakeasy.net/~yeh/Sigma/Sigma.html

I have since traded my 18-55 for a Nikon 50mm 1.8 (a real must have lens for portraits). Then I sold my 55-200mm and invested in an older push-pull Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (which cost about $350 on ebay).

I would recommend selling off the 18-55 and getting the Sigma 18-200...the Sigma is really a very nice lens. I'll try to put a list of my best Sigma 18-200 pics together for you...keep a watch on the forums.

GL

Nikon D50
Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 ED-D
Nikkor 50mm 1.8
Sigma 18-200 DC
Tokina 100-300 AT-X

oops....meant to say that the 18-200 is about as sharp as the 18-55 at 18mm.
--

Nikon D50
Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 ED-D
Nikkor 50mm 1.8
Sigma 18-200 DC
Tokina 100-300 AT-X

Thank you all for your great advice!!

And what do you guys think about the new Sigma 18-200 with Optical Stabilisation? Do you think it will be a LOT more expensive than the Sigma 18-200?

Go well!

Who knows? There have not been any tests of this lens, so nobody can tell if this is a good lens yet. Anyway, I would be surprised if it comes under $500. It could be a nice alternative for the nikon 18-200VR as a walk around lens. Personally I will stick to my Sigma 30mm 1.4, Nikon 85mm 1.8 and Nikon 180mm 2.8. Faster lenses, but less convenient than just one lens. Nevertheless, it's an interesting lens, and the 18-200 range (with the limitations of a superzoom) is great for a holiday where you want to bring only 1 or 2 lenses.
Peter

I hope it costs less than the Nikon...and functions as good! ;-)

BTW- here is a comparison I did with the nikon 55-200, sigma 18-200, and nikon 80-200 f2.8

http://ebem.org/yeh/sigma18-200_vs_nikons/sigma.html

--

Nikon D50
Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 ED-D
Nikkor 50mm 1.8
Sigma 18-200 f3.5-6.3 DC
Tokina 100-300 f4.0 AT-X

From those pictures i'd stick to Nikon, the Sigma pics have terrible CA.

looking at the sigma 18-200, the pics look sharp and i don't see CA. Where did u see it?

The leaves in the upper left corner seem sharper than the nikons. Also, the leaves are well defined more on the sigma. Did the sun pop out and light the door up during the scence? The door & plant in front of the door seems a little blown of detail by the sun.

http://ebem.org/yeh/sigma18-200_vs_nikons/sigma-Pages/Image2.html

Look where the extension roof meets the house. Look at the leaves.

hi guys, I am leaning towards the following:

1) Sigma 70-300 APO macro + Nikon 50mm f/1.8 = $ 300 odd (keep my 18-55 DX)

or

2) Sigma 18-200 + Nikon 50mm f/1.8 = $400 odd (sell my 18-55 DX)

(if the Sigma 18-200 OS is around the $450 mark I might get only that lens - funds are limited - will get the Nikkor 50 1.8 later then)

I have read a lot of reviews with people saying that the 70-300 APO is a very good lens for the money, but I read the following review on the Sigma 18-200 comparing it to the Nikon 18-200 and Tamron 18-200 (h* p: www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma18200mm/page4.shtml)

The Sigma seems to me to be not too bad, its a little softer in the corners than the Nikon, but it is less than half the price.

I don't know, I could afford to carry 2-3 lenses with me, but whouldn't option (2) be more comfortable(it is an appealing concept to not have to swap lenses if I want to shoot some tele shots) because the 18-55's range is so limited? Please let me know of your experience with these set-ups.

Thank you for your advice thus far!