sigma 18-200 os vs. Nikon 18-200 vrII

[BEASTMAN]

I am still trying to decide which camera and lens I am getting. My choices were the nikon d80 w/ the nikon 18-200 vr or the canon 40d w/ 17-85is. The choice is hard for me because I want the nikon lens but the canon 40d body more. So I am looking at the sigma 18-200 os for the canon trying to get the best of both worlds. Will this be a good solution? How much better would the nikon lens be to the sigma. Should I just stick with the 17-85is if I get the canon instead? Any help would be appreciated.

[Photo-John]

That's a tough one. I really do love that Nikon lens. But the EOS 40D is a better body than the Nikon D80. I think it would be worthwhile for you to look at the larger, longterm picture. Which system would you rather buy into? Because I think it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other when it really comes down to it. The Nikon equivalent to the EOS 40D is the D300. So if you like what Nikon has to offer more than what Canon does, you should be looking at the 300D, or buying for the lenses instead.

I wish I could tell you something about the Sigma 18-200 OS lens. I've used the Nikon but haven't had my hands on the Sigma yet. As a Canon owner, I'm very interested, though. I have been jealous of the Nikon 18-200 VR since it was introduced. What I can say is that Sigma's good stuff is very good. Their cheap stuff is just that - cheap. Same goes for the other third-party lens makers. They all make excellent lenses - if you pay for the good stuff.

Back to the point - what do you really want? What's the longterm strategy? Would you rather be investing in Nikon or Canon for the next 5 to 10 years? I think that's the best way to decide.