I'm considering the less expensive Sigma 18-300 DC Macro lens vs. the (way) more expensive Nikkor 18-300. Would I be losing the gains by buying a 24 MP Nikon 3200 if I went with the Sigma?

  • Have a look at this question to find out where on the web you can find lens reviews. photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/…
    – Rene
    Apr 10 '14 at 7:41
  • The sigma 18-250 macro is the better buy.I print 13-19 inch prints that amaze my friends.the macro on this lens is pretty good. I do not believe you can find a better all purpose lens if that is what out are looking for.look in Flickr for lens groups or go to you camera shop and test
    – user34921
    Nov 26 '14 at 11:45
  • Just for fun: photographylife.com/question-18-300mm-lenses-part-deux - but hey, it's a matter of compromises and of your needs.
    – Rmano
    Apr 20 '15 at 20:09

You'd be sacrificing a significant portion of the capabilities of the D3200 by using either on of those lenses on it. Zoom lenses with a wide range of focal lengths force the designers to make many compromises along the way. The best quality for the lowest price is usually found in prime lenses (lenses with only one focal length). Some of the best and most expensive zoom lenses that cover about a 3x focal length range (such as the 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 pro grade lenses from various manufacturers) cost about 5-8 times the price of primes that yield comparable image quality. You won't be able to find an 18-300 that gives wide apertures and the same image quality at any price.

  • 3
    Thats code for "That lens sucks." (for image quality ... probably).
    – rfusca
    Mar 12 '14 at 3:55
  • 3
    That's code for "any 18-300 includes compromises that sacrifice a lot of image quality."
    – Michael C
    Mar 12 '14 at 22:23
  • Indeed...indeed.
    – rfusca
    Mar 13 '14 at 1:05

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.