Telephoto upgrade time?

[Whiternoise]

I've got a 55-200mm and it's fantastic - dirt cheap, great sharp images, VR, the works. However, times change and I'm looking for something a bit more flexible. The options that immediately spring to mind are:

70-300mm VR ~£400
18-200mm VR ~£450
Sigma 70-200 OS f/2.8 ~£850
Keep the 55-200 and buy a 105mm macro

I managed to break my kit lens a couple of years ago (concrete slap) and currently I'm using a much loved Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 as my standard zoom which is fantastic and goes with me everywhere. People seem to be raving about the 18-200 in that you don't need to change lenses again, etc, etc. The downside is, obviously, it's not a particularly quick lens. VR may get what.. 2 or 3 stops out which is a bonus. It looks like a decent walkabout lens, something that I can slap on the camera and just go and take pictures without worrying about taking multiple lenses.

The 70-300 would be a simpler upgrade - better optics and longer reach.

The Sigma is also on my mind, along with maybe the Nikon 80-200 AF-D. I've been eyeing up a fast telephoto, something that I can use indoors and at gigs, that sort of thing. The downside is that it costs an absolute fortune and I could buy the 18-200 and another lens for the same money. I could buy many other things with that sort of money!

Soo... I'm not really sure what I want. The 18-200 sounds like a fab lens, but I'm concerned I'll miss out on the low light performance I've gotten used to (I've basically been shooting on f/2.8 glass for the last year). On the other hand, I was considering getting perhaps the 18-200 and a single fast lens like a Tokina 100mm.

The Nikkor 105mm looks lovely, and would be conveniently dual purpose, but I'm not sure I can afford to shell out quite that much! The Tokina is very highly reviewed, so may be an option...

[Bobster]

you say more flexible, all but the 70-300 you've quoted are all within your current focal range?

what is it you actually want?

[kalniel]

Same point as Bobster - you're already very flexible with your 18-50 + 55-200 so that doesn't seem to be the main criteria.

Ease of a single lens system.. I can understand that, but if you're willing to compromise the advantages of a DLSR to get that (as you would be a little using the 18-200) then you might want to just get a good compact for the times when you truly need compactness and ease of carrying etc.

If I were in your place I'd get the 105/100 macro (be that nikkor/tokina/sigma) - it addresses low-light gigs (a bit) and opens up macro, so seems to bring the most to the table for your money.

[Whiternoise]

Apologies for being unclear, I was surfing onestop digital while I was writing and I kept finding lenses I liked the look of.

Simply: I want an upgrade to my 55-200mm.

Options:

-Get something similar specced, but inherently a lot more flexible, like a 'superzoom' 18-200mm
-Get something better, like a 70-300 or a classic 70-200 f2.8
-Keep the 55-200 and get some decent glass somewhere between 100-200 (i.e. 105mm f2.8)


Kalniel - I have thought seriously about buying a decent compact, I'd love to get an ixus and put CHDK on it. The reason I thought 18-200 was because spec-wise it's more or less the same as the 55-200, but with that additional wide end. I've used the 55-200 for gigs before and if the light is ok, it's fantastic (VR helps a bit). I tend to use it, oddly enough, as my main gig lens because it's just wide enough to get a body shot in and long enough to get a head shot if necessary. That said, if the light is rubbish, then not much you can do with it.

[Bobster]

if you're concentrating on gig photography, Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX is the way to go