>John, > >I bought Nikon 18-200 VR for $400 and Nikon 18-200 VRII for >$450. > >Please spend some time on this forum: >https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=157 > >most advanced photographers say that are about 50/50 happy >with non-Nikon 18-2xx lenses. I had very bad experience with >Tamrons, but Nikon 18-200 VR or VRII it's just point and shot >- sharp enough every time. I hate Tamron's VC system. I >suggest you to try one of the lenses you are planning to buy >used. >Best regards, >Vlad
As to my choices, yes, I've read the articles slamming non-Nikon lenses. Same on the Canon forums for the non-Canon lenses. I imagine, if there was a Kabashigawa forum ...
It will be a stretch to cough up $750 for the entire kit. At that, I'll have to wait and save for my next lens, a 50. A $100 to $150 bump upward is a deal killer. I reach for the rung, but my arm's too short, and that's how it is. NO BORROWING!
The Nikon is probably a better lens. Yet, those who own the Tamron, who are NOT bashing it, claim it's marvelous. I guess it's like the carnival barker sez, "Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chance!" The ONE note from all the reading was to be sure to buy the PZD Tamron or the "macro" version of the Sigma. The QA and the performance, according to the forums, is better on those later versions than the previous versions. The non-PZD Tamron had numerous QA problems. That generated a LOT of anti-Tamron forum traffic.
Believe me, I've read, talked to, and listened.
Unfortunately, the lens rental places don't carry these! They are mostly into lenses that START at $500. Of course they are. Their primary customers are pros. I checked. Nikon and Canon only.
This decision may still change, if I find someone who has the Tamron AND the Nikon, and compare them. But I don't have that, right now.