Camera people help

[angie_phoenix]

Would it be better to wait to be able to afford a Nikon 70-200 or would a similar sigma or tamron be a better choice based on being about 900 cheaper?

All 3 lenses are on this page http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_e?url=

Comments

[pantharos]

Never used a sigma lens but Nikon lens are over priced, they are good but frankly I've never thought they were outstanding. In fact I've had some real design issues with some of them.

Tameron on the other hand, is outstanding. I've had tameron lens for my Nikons since I was 11. I love them.

Let me suggest this:

The tameron AF 18-200. It covers most of the range you'd ever need. It's smaller and lighter than those other lenses. And it has a zoom lock switch for keeping the telecsoping parts from slipping out while you walk or hike. This is my do everything lens. I rarely need anything else. And while I bought it new for $450 you can now get it for under $300. I recommended it to Robin once too, I don't know if she bought it but it's made for cannon and nikon. The only concession is that the F-stop only goes down to 3.5.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05022105tamron_18-200mm.asp

and at amazon:Reply

[angie_phoenix]

It looks like it doesn't have vibration reduction either. I am thinking I want something I can use in lower light, but am also buying my first external flash so maybe the lack of that and it not being quite as fast won't be as significant once I start working with that. I may just shoot with that flash and what I have for a bit to better assess what I need (and I can't afford the nikon atm anyway).