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
>>166558Get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Just do it. It's worth it.I second that. Nothing but the best for me.
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.
>>166558He has a D40. I'd get the Sigma HSM version for the AF.
>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.
>>166598>monthSelf-fixedAnd yep, I think it's overpriced, too.
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=electronics&qid=1208820507&sr=8-1