KEH camera offers pretty good deals and rates theirs well. The forums on Nikonians.org seems to have a lot of well-cared-for glass too. It's one of the advantages of the system.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon D80 lens advice
- Thread starter djchristie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
KEH camera offers pretty good deals and rates theirs well. The forums on Nikonians.org seems to have a lot of well-cared-for glass too. It's one of the advantages of the system.
My vote would be the Nikkor 18-200mm VR if you want just ONE lens. If you want to take two, then the surprisingly good Nikkor 18-70mm kit lens and the new 70-300mm VR....
Check out kenrockwell.com and search for 18-200 VR. He did a review of that lens and said the 18-200 VR DX and a 12-24 DX covers about 99% of what he needs to shoot. Supposedly he can use the 18-200 for macro also since it has such a short minimum focus distance. Very nice!
Between those two lenses and a lense on the longer side, most people could cover just about anything.
A friend has had okay luck with a couple of Tamrons but had some serious issues with a long Sigma. If you are concerned about quality I might recommend sticking with Nikkor, if your budget will allow.
I wish I had waited for the 18-200 VR DX before I bought what I did. I could have eliminated three lenses in my lineup!
Between those two lenses and a lense on the longer side, most people could cover just about anything.
A friend has had okay luck with a couple of Tamrons but had some serious issues with a long Sigma. If you are concerned about quality I might recommend sticking with Nikkor, if your budget will allow.
I wish I had waited for the 18-200 VR DX before I bought what I did. I could have eliminated three lenses in my lineup!
I wouldn't consider Ken Rockwell a very authoritative source for reviews, he seems to weigh opinion, guesswork and bias as fact. Lens review-wise, Thom Hogan is much more stable, factual and professional. His site is at www.bythom.com.
Exactly, do not read Ken Rockwell's writings for equipment assessment, just read it for giggles. Whether or not you think Thom is critical enough or not, at least he actually tries to test and covey his real opinion on gear.
Here is another, more "technical" review of the 18-200 VR:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm
Their conclusion seems fair:
"Regarding some glowing reviews available on the web the expectation were rather high. Unfortunately the (tested sample of the) Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX wasn't able to convince completely. Weak points are rather hefty distortions and high vignetting (@ f/3.5) at 18mm. Apart from a few weak spots the resolution figures are quite good though and it is possible to get very decent images from this lens under field conditions. The VR can surely help to save the day in situations where similar zooms must fail utterly The build quality is a little soso for a lens in this price class and probably the biggest disappointment. All in all the Nikkor is a highly interesting lens but not without flaws (hardly surprising for a 11x zoom). "
For a lens with 18-200 mm range, I'd say that the Nikon 18-200 mm with VR is excellent, and it has VR to help with those 200 mm shots when you need it. There's going to be some distortion, but if you don't notice (because you don't know what it is), then you won't care; if you notice, you still may not care. 
And besides, a bit of distortion won't hurt if you're not in a situation where there are a lot of straight lines, like in a city. It's almost a non-factor when photographing nature, landscapes, etc.
Anyway, I'd say it's a treat. I wouldn't want to switch lenses too often while I'm down there, and this is one way to avoid it. The lens is tops for such a lens.
Isn't the Sigma 80-400 mm OS lens also HSM, or am I thinking about the Bigma? Haha, it's so weird, because the 80-400 mm has OS but apparently no HSM, while the Bigma 50-500 mm has no OS, but includes HSM. One day, Sigma are going to do it right and include HSM on the 80-400 mm, and OS on the 50-500 mm, because at the focal lengths, and focal range you're talking about with these lenses, you really need both. Of course, OS isn't going to be a replacement for a monopod or tripod at 400 or 500 mm, and who'd want to run around all day with a big lens like that? I can sort of see why they didn't include OS in the 50-500 mm, but anyway, I'd still like to see it.
I'd love to have either lens, although I have heard better things about the Bigma.
And besides, a bit of distortion won't hurt if you're not in a situation where there are a lot of straight lines, like in a city. It's almost a non-factor when photographing nature, landscapes, etc. Anyway, I'd say it's a treat. I wouldn't want to switch lenses too often while I'm down there, and this is one way to avoid it. The lens is tops for such a lens.
Isn't the Sigma 80-400 mm OS lens also HSM, or am I thinking about the Bigma? Haha, it's so weird, because the 80-400 mm has OS but apparently no HSM, while the Bigma 50-500 mm has no OS, but includes HSM. One day, Sigma are going to do it right and include HSM on the 80-400 mm, and OS on the 50-500 mm, because at the focal lengths, and focal range you're talking about with these lenses, you really need both. Of course, OS isn't going to be a replacement for a monopod or tripod at 400 or 500 mm, and who'd want to run around all day with a big lens like that? I can sort of see why they didn't include OS in the 50-500 mm, but anyway, I'd still like to see it.
I'd love to have either lens, although I have heard better things about the Bigma.
Big? Ha! I laugh loudly at your sense of size! Big? hahahahaha!
/me pats is 400mm on the hood.