File :-(, x, )
Are Sigma or Tamron lenses worth it? Anonymous
I am in the process of searching for a lens to replace my D40x kit lens, and would like to have a constant f/2.8 one.

Sigma and Tamron seem to have very decent options:
1- Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ($369 @ Amazon)
2- Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ($449 @ Amazon)
3- Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($429 @ Amazon)

Now, if Sigma or Tamron lenses are not worth it, I have also seen some other Nikkor options:
4- Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ($629 @ Amazon) Why is this lens so expensive?
5- Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 ($350 @ Amazon)

Apart from those, all of them are to expensive. Anyone here has any experiences with Sigma or Tamton lenses? Or with the Nikkor ones?

Any help is appreciated
>> weatherreport !UPBQK5lNSw
>>166558Get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Just do it. It's worth it.

I second that. Nothing but the best for me.
>> Anonymous
Sigma and Tamron lenses are good. I use a 28-75 F2.8 by tamron and it's real good. I dont think it'll AF on your camera though.
>> Anonymous
>>166558
He has a D40. I'd get the Sigma HSM version for the AF.
>> Anonymous
>Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 ($629 @ Amazon) Why is this lens so expensive?
Reportedly excellent quality despite pretty big zoom range, VR, released just a mointh or so ago.
>> Anonymous
>>166598
>month
Self-fixed

And yep, I think it's overpriced, too.
>> Anonymous
So Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is the best option out of these?

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-Macro-Lens-Nikon/dp/B000UC5YSQ/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=electr
onics&qid=1208820507&sr=8-1