Nikon general purpose (I know, it's been done to death)

PJwebbs

PJwebbs

Messages
198
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this topic has been done to death but I'm just wonder how people have got on with these types of lenses.

Since moving to Nikon I have acquire a 35 an 85 and a 150-600. Love them all, but... In a few weeks I will be starting to get out and about more, camping, going to National Parks etc.. and i don't really have anything to stick on my camera to suit this (would like to travel light).

When I had my Pentax gear I had a Tamron 17-50 2.8, I liked the 17mm and enjoyed having the fast aperture in my back pocket, even if I didn't use it all the time for landscapes it did come in handy. However I did find myself on quite a few occasions wanting more reach.

So my question is what do you use? How do you rate what you use? I'm after a general 'walk about' lens that is slightly more biased towards landscape, as I will soon be looking into a tripod and filters.

I have been eyeing up the 16-85 as this seems to have the slight extra reach I've been after and gives that 24mm full frame view at the wide end, although it is a slow lens... (I also have a 67mm 10stop B+W filter that would fit this, not like that's a reason to buy a lens, but it adds to it's argument)

How do 17-70 f4s compare to the 16-85? If you have to stop it down to get results then that f4 isn't all that useful and you are losing range both ends.

Go back to a 17-50 2.8? Sigma or Tamron, they seem quite cheap on Nikon mount. Or sell some M4/3 gear and get the Nikon 17-55 2.8? 5mm isn't much extra though, if anything.

Then what about the 18-140s or the Ken Rockwell highly praised 18-200? Would I miss the extra 2mm wide for landscapes??

Decisions decisions... What do you guys use? What's your experience?

Thanks!
 
It's not cheap and it's not light but if I was shooting dx, I'd be sorely tempted by the sigma 18-35 1.8
 
I've heard great things about that lens, but I think i'd be left wanting more reach... Always a trade off :(
 
I assume from the lenses you're discussing that you are looking at DX lenses? 18mm (27mm eq) isn't super wide by any stretch of the imagination but is more than adequate for general landscape. When I bought my D750 I started out with the old 28-105mm D lens (which of course is still 28-105mm on my camera) and got some really nice landscapes with it.
 
My favourite Dx lens was the old kit lens that came with my D70 many years ago, the 18-70. Possibly not fast enough for you but punches well above its weight and is better than most kit lenses.
 
Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 Without a doubt. Stunning all round landscape lens.

Only sold it when I went FF.

Far superior to the 18-70mm, but the price difference tells you that.

Mr R.....always good for a laugh and if you read between the lines, he is knowledgeable, but don't believe all he writes without understanding irony, so take him with a dose of salt.
 
shreds said:
Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 Without a doubt. Stunning all round landscape lens.

Only sold it when I went FF.

Far superior to the 18-70mm, but the price difference tells you that.

Mr R.....always good for a laugh and if you read between the lines, he is knowledgeable, but don't believe all he writes without understanding irony, so take him with a dose of salt.
Click to expand...
Or get the Tamron 17-50mm which is arguably sharper than the 17-55mm and lighter and much less money.

Screen%20Shot%202016-01-10%20at%2013.47.21_zpsv9gtqzfe.png
 
Last edited:
It's easy to get obsessed by IQ. When I bought my first crop frame DSLR I chose the then pretty good 18-250mm Tamron instead of the kit lens. As the years have passed I've acquired bigger better cameras and a good selection of superior lenses. I've kept expecting to find that my improved sensors plus the better lenses would have relegated that old 14X zoom to the dusty top shelf. But when I want to walk about unencumbered and carefree with one general purpose lens just in case I spot something interesting I keep finding that nothing beats it for convenience. Anything with less range of focal length is too often found annoyingly lacking.

Of course I take a hit in image quality, but to be honest nobody but me pixel peeping on a computer screen would ever notice. On an A4 print with suitable sharpening etc to compensate for the weaknesses of the lens I'd be hard pressed to tell whether it was taken with the old 18-250mm or one of the 16-50mm f2.8 or 80-200mm f2.8 which are my two lens superior quality walk around replacement. Of course those two lenses have far superior dim light and arty background blurring technology but in opportunistic sunny walkabout snapping I mostly shoot in f8 anyway. If I didn't already have that handy 14X zoom I'd be checking out the new Tamron 16-300mm and its competitors.

Perhaps I should make a sticker for the side of that 18-250mm obstinately useful old Swiss Army Knife of lenses: "I'm just slumming. I really do have much better lenses at home." :)

For landscapes, however, I definitely find only 18mm at the wide end annoyingly restrictive. If landscapes or cityscapes or architectural interiors are likely I'll add an 8-16mm to the 18-250mm. That's my most frequently used pair of lenses.
 
chris malcolm said:
Perhaps I should make a sticker for the side of that 18-250mm obstinately useful old Swiss Army Knife of lenses: "I'm just slumming. I really do have much better lenses at home." :)
Click to expand...


Nah, have some stickers made up for the "better" lenses saying "I'm just posing, I have a far more versatile zoom in the bag!" :p
I have an 18-200 Nikkor (the 18-270 Tamron doesn't work on the body I wanted it for :() on my V1. With its 2.7x crop factor, the 18-200 has an EFL of about 50-540 which covers most uses.
 
@PJwebbs I went through the same process as you, I got the Nikon 18-140 which is a great lens and produces great colours but it wasn't fast enough for indoors or night time, sun rise/set photography. So I got the SIGMA 17-50 2.8 which is a great lens. Really sharp, nice images come from it. Takes the same filters as my tokina 11-16 and it has OS (image stabilisation) which works well. Highly recommended. I've still got the 18-140 because I like it so much, reluctant to get rid, but I haven't used it since getting the sigma.

The downsides of the sigma- no rubber bit on lens mount so I fear it letting water/dust into my 'weather sealed' camera. And the focus ring at the front rotates when lens is focusing, for some reason this really annoys me! Still worth getting though and it's comparatively cheap.

My camera is a D7200 which I believe is the same as your new Nikon.
 
Just to add-

I'm sure the ultimate landscape turn walkabout DX Nikon lens would be the new 16-80 Nikon. But not a lot of reviews on it (what reviews there is seem really good) and it's rather exoensive. I think you should get that one and review it for us?!?

Edit: just been looking at the reviews of this lens again and they are 50/50 and I didn't realise it's a f2.8-4. I thought it was fixed aperture.

Sigma 17-50 seems like a bargain compared, I'm sure the tamron is too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies, given me loads to think about. I'm very torn between grabbing another 17-50 Tarmon and the 16-85 Nikon, that range just seems much better than the 17-50's and If i'm using it during the day with would I need the 2.8? It has VR to help (I don't think I'd get the VR Tamron). However the 2.8 makes the 17-50s more versatile in a different sense with depth of field. Then I think to myself, If i'm getting a 17-50 do I shell out a few more pennies (double the price) and get the 17-55 Nikon? That 16-85 though... that range... Can't decide....Too hard!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top