Nikon lens vs. Sigma

Get Something that doesn't start at 18mm and keep your kit lens

or get the Tamraon 17-50 f2.8 to replace your kit lens

neither, look into an 80-200 and a 17-50 to replace the kit lens.

never buy anything 18-200, they are horrible

i wouldnt say ANYTHING, my sony 18-200 for my fs100 is a very nice lens, but its also 800 bucks and different than any sigma or nikon 18-200.

i have heard the same thing about the 14-140 for the gh1/gh2/af100, but i believe both of these are advertised as higher performance superzoom lenses. I know that the 14-140 is specifically made for video and is a very good lens, and right around the price of the sony lens. But usually lenses with such a range are sub par at any focal length on the range, and are more so that soccer moms can get pictures of their kids anywhere on the field. Definitely seems like it would be convenient to have the range though

Yeah, well its because they're made for video cameras which makes them better quality, although slow and have variable aperture, they're built very well and have great optics. the nikon kit lenses are okay, same with canons but shitty builts and the sigma "kit" lenses are even worse. But, again, those are made for soccer moms and their rebels/d40s while the pani and sony lenses are made for professional video.

Look into the Nikkor 16-85mm VR, such a sick all around lens. It does have variable aperture but it's not too big of a problem considering the awesome zoom range. Here's a review of it I just found off google: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr