File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, I'm going to Europe for vacation next Friday for 2 weeks. Last year when I was in Paris, I took my D40 + kit lens (18-55mm) and I felt like I really needed the extra zoom pretty often and thus missed out on a lot of shots.

I've been waiting for the D90 for a long while now but now I'm wondering if the 18-105mm VR is long enough for me. I also want to get the 10-20mm Sigma. Now obviously I'm not made of money (seeing as how I'm paying for this trip out of my own pocket and it's likely going to cost me $5000 if not more). I tried going to a couple stores today to check out the D90 but neither of them had it out on display...So yeah, I was just seeking suggestions - should I get the D90 kit and the Sigma? Or maybe stick with the D40 and get the 18-200mm VR and the Sigma?
>> Anonymous
Dude, if you want substandard choices, go for the gold. Get the digital-only lens or the Sigma that'll start having problems in six to twelve months. I understand that my view isn't held by all, nor should it be, I suppose. It's just a product of necessity.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
If cost is the primary consideration maybe get a Nikkor 55-200 VR and then the Sigma 10-22. There's no need to make your kit lens redundant.
>> Anonymous
Sigma 10-20mm is fantastic, I've owned mine for 1.5 yrs BTW, no troubles with it obviously.

the 18-105 VR i'm not so sure about, never used it, buying an 18-135 af-s would save you some money. And from what I hear is a pretty fantastic lens.

That would leave you pretty screwed for low light / wide aperture stuff. Maybe add a 50mm f1.8? they are dirt cheap.
>> Anonymous
>>257774
The 18-105 is an 18-135 with more VR, equal sharpness, and less chrom ab and vignetting. Worth the extra bucks if you'll EVER shoot in low light, which you will.

>>257766
Unless you're feeling limited by your body, always go for the lenses. If you don't mind switching lenses you can always just grab a 55-200 VR to pair with your kit lens instead of replacing it with the 18-200 VR, but the Sigma 10-20 is fantastic either way.
>> Anonymous
the 55-200 is a fantastic lens for the price
>> Anonymous
I just cannot understand why people keep considering Sigma lenses for Nikon. Years ago they were much cheaper so if you were really dirt poor and that's all the money you had OK. But now they don't make sense and they're mostly shit. If you really don't have money wait. You could also buy one Nikon prime. There's nothing wrong with travelling with just one lens.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>257847
Sigma lenses are fantastic, only if you view the actual pixels, you'll notice the difference. On print it all looks the same.
>> Anonymous
>>257853
oh, they are fantastic just because you said so?
You keep buying them. I'll stay away from them like the plague
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>257859
Example being the Sigma 10-20, Nikons closest equiv being the 12-24.

The Sigma
- Wider
- Half the price
- Soft around the edges wide open though
The Nikon
- Double the price
- Less Cromab
- Sharper than the Sigma

Would you honestly pay another £300+ just for less Cromab, which can easily be removed in PP, or the extra sharpness around the edges? Although that can still be usm'd to an extent.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>257766
I've gone on two Europe vacations with my d40, kit lens and 55-200VR. I've found that I use the kit lens most of the time, due to either landscapes, or being too close to things to use the telephoto. The two together cover pretty much everything you'll encounter, and as others have said, the 55-200 is great for the price. The d40 works fine, too, even running around in light rain, you probably don't need to upgrade right before a trip, and the 55-200 would still give you extra range if you buy a d90 kit later.
>> Anonymous
Appreciate the feedback. I decided to buy the 18-200mm VR and the 10-20mm Sigma and stick with the D40 body for now.

I'm about to order both of these lenses. How important is getting a filter for either lens?
>> Anonymous
>>258364

only if you are getting a circ pol filter
>> Anonymous
a bit off topic, but as for quality of lenses this is relevant.

I have bought and sold a lot of lenses in my time, and the ones I got rid of because of inferior quality were
All Tokina lenses i've ever had (28-70 f2.8's)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Nikon 50m f1.4 was too soft, so sold it for a 50 f1.8 (mostly to get the extra cash difference)
Nikon 85mm f1.8, CA was nasty and AF was inconsistent

You can't group lens quality by manufacturer ALL the time, theres good and bad lenses made by each company. The sigma 10-20mm is a fantastic lens. Especially for the price
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>258364
you'll need a UV filter for both.