Walkabout lens £400

[dan_yorkshire]

Hi,

I am looking to buy my D90 as body only, and will have £400 to spend on a
mid range/walkabout/everyday.......'call it what you like' lens.

I will be purchasing a Nikon 70-300 VR so the lens would ideally have to
complement that focal range.

Was originally looking at the Sigma 17-70 and the face they have just
released a 17-70 OS is making me lean even more towards it, however with it
only being new I dont want to buy it before a huge amount of reviews have
been done on it.

Can anyone provide feedback on this lens or suggest an alternative.

Many thanks,

Dan

[Frenzied Dwarf]

I use the 28-70 2.8 sigma as my walkabout and it does well for me, 2.8 constant but you do lose the 17-28mm range which can be a bit annoying but its never stopped me getting a shot.

Ive not used the 17-70 so cant comment

[Mr Mike]

I was in the same boat and after a lot of research i settled on the tamron 17-50 f2.8 as my walk about on my D90. Ok only goes to 50mm but i use my feet to address the difference between 50-70, at least i have wide end which i think is more suited to me, very sharp and well built lens.

This may help...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=187540

[Lardinio]

Lots of choices for £400, used and second hand - depends on what is important - price, range, variable or fixed aperture, focus speed/volume, build, VR/OS/VC, brand etc

Here are some to consider:
Nikkor AF-S 18-105/3.5-5.6 VRI
Nikkor AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6 VRII
Nikkor AF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 VRI
Simga 17-70/2.8-4 HSM OS Macro
Simga 17-70/2.8-4.5 Macro
Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro
Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5 HSM OS
Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro
Sigma 18-250/3.5-6.3 HSM OS
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC and non-VC
Tamron 18-270mm/3.5-6.3 VC Macro
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Tokina 18-50/2.8 ATX-165

There are compromises in all of them and the list is not exclusive there are others (for example, Nikkor 18-70 and 18-135 AF-S' that can be picked up cheaply in the used market).

My money (given I don't know any of your qualifying criteria other than price) would be on the Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR or Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, both of which are available new for around £400 or less.

Cheers

Bruce

[Martyn...]

For a £400 budget my choice would be the Nikkor 16-85 VR

[dan_yorkshire]

Cheers for your responses,

I had spotted the 16-85 actually but thought it was a bit slow at 3.5 wide open? Though like the fact it is Nikon and less chance of getting a 'dodgy copy'

I'll slightly change the subject then.... has anyone got the 16-85 and can they back up the good reviews it gets?

Deciding on the upgrade to the D90 was easy, just this lens choice that is bugging me.

Thanks

[Martyn...]

Thom Hogan always seems to give an accurate balanced view on stuff LINK (http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm)

The trouble with the third party stuff is sample variation, the number of times that you see the phrase "as long as you get a good copy" makes me wonder how anyone can make a recommendation that is a 50/50 chance of it being any good.

I had one Sigma lens, it was pants, I would not have another as a gift.

[dan_yorkshire]

Thom Hogan always seems to give an accurate balanced view on stuff LINK (http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm)

The trouble with the third party stuff is sample variation, the number of times that you see the phrase "as long as you get a good copy" makes me wonder how anyone can make a recommendation that is a 50/50 chance of it being any good.

I had one Sigma lens, it was pants, I would not have another as a gift.

Cheers Martyn for the link, it looks like a very sturdy reliable lens, I just think I might regret not getting a faster lens and whilst it is obviously 'better glass' it is no quicker than my 18-55 kit lens I currently have on my D60.

I already have the 35mm 1.8 so low light photography but would not want to change the lens to the prime unless it was really needed.

Mmmm decisions, decisions

[Tracer]

I use the Nikon 16-85 as my walk-about lens and really like it. It is not too heavy or bulky and gives excellent images. Yes, it is a bit slow but I don't normally find that a problem.

The Nikon 18-70 is also very good (and faster) but doesn't have VR, and not quite so wide - the difference between 18mm and 16mm doesn't sound much but it is a lot in practice.

My light-weight travel kit is the 16-85 + 35 1.8. I also have the 70-300 if I need it.

[-Rob-]

I have always considered a walkabout lens to be a lens that pretty much covers every range you'd want to use it for so I'd consider a 18-200mm as a walkabout lens. To me a 17-70 or 24-70 is too restrictive to call a walkabout lens. You can't always walk closer to the subject you want to photograph so you need a longer lens.

I don't have a walkabout lens at the moment but if I were to get one it would be the Nikon 18-200mm

[dan_yorkshire]

I use the Nikon 16-85 as my walk-about lens and really like it. It is not too heavy or bulky and gives excellent images. Yes, it is a bit slow but I don't normally find that a problem.

The Nikon 18-70 is also very good (and faster) but doesn't have VR, and not quite so wide - the difference between 18mm and 16mm doesn't sound much but it is a lot in practice.

My light-weight travel kit is the 16-85 + 35 1.8. I also have the 70-300 if I need it.

If I was to get the 16-85 then that would be exactly the kit I would have for my D90.

Still worried about it being too slow but looking likely as the one I may opt for, if only for staying clear of the 3rd party lenses.

[Martyn...]

If I was to get the 16-85 then that would be exactly the kit I would have for my D90.

Still worried about it being too slow but looking likely as the one I may opt for, if only for staying clear of the 3rd party lenses.

Faster options in Nikkor are beyond your £400 budget, 17-55 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 lenses are big chunks of glass, whilst as sharp as tacks are a fair bulk to carry.

There is always a used 35-70 f2.8D (£250-£300) which is as sharp as a tack, however may not be wide enough for you.

The 16-85 VR is far superior optically, to your 18-55 kit lens, pretty sharp and produces great images, not a bad range either.

[Lardinio]

dan_yorkshire. Don't dismiss the Tamron 17-50. Go to as decent shop, try a few samples and see what takes your fancy. You get sample variation in Nikkors too, just not as much.

[Goneforagasper]

The most versitile is the Nikon 18-200 VR. I have had one for a couple of years and find it an ideal walkabout.
When I go on hols and want to keep the weight down I take the 18-200, does everything I want and good quality IQ

[cowasaki]

Another vote for the 18-200vr it is a good lens and covers a vast range. Yes it is not as good as a some others at specific values but it is the best lens for that range.

[waspjunior]

I can vouch for the Nikon AF-S 16-85 VR. I find it a very sharp lens that feels very solidly made too. It lives on my camera as an everyday walk about lens. There's a mint, boxed one in classifieds for £350 at the moment. (no connection)

[Bill Roberts]

Well... apart from the obvious of trying to get you to go for a decent setup like a Canon :)

Seriously I'd try to stay with Nikon lenses. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc., are all OK but in the long run I always think you're better staying with the perfect match to your camera body. If it's Nikon then go for Nikon lenses too.