help from Nikon owners please....

C

cherokee1111

Messages
822
Edit My Images
Yes
That elusive search continues for a good sharp (key) walkabout zoom(scenic and family). So can I have real world experience please of a decent range lens that 'works' on a D90 and is fast and sharp as I intend making a long term purchase. Already have the 35mm and 85mm f1.8 primes which are excellent but limiting for certain occasions.
Thanks
 
cherokee1111 said:
That elusive search continues for a good sharp (key) walkabout zoom(scenic and family). So can I have real world experience please of a decent range lens that 'works' on a D90 and is fast and sharp as I intend making a long term purchase. Already have the 35mm and 85mm f1.8 primes which are excellent but limiting for certain occasions.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Well, when it come to fast....24-70 or 70-200 2.8 VR 1or 2
Becoming quite popular is the new 24-120 f4 VR
or not so fast the new 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR
 
trevorbray said:
Well, when it come to fast....24-70 or 70-200 2.8 VR 1or 2
Becoming quite popular is the new 24-120 f4 VR
or not so fast the new 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR
Click to expand...

thanks trevor, however, they all seem too narrow on a crop and limiting for any scenic stuff
 
What about the Tammy 17-50 I think it is. Fast at 2.8
 
Or there is the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 which is for the DX body ....
 
Nikon 18-70 is hard to beat for price and quality
 
The Nikon 17-55 is just brilliant on a crop body.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
28-70, thats my next purchase and seems to be a cracking lens.
Click to expand...

If you mean the "beast" Its an awesome lens - Trev will be along to confirm, wont you Trev ;)

If you can get your mits on one you'll be happy.... :thumbs:
 
I love The Beast x
 
On a crop body, the 'old' 17-35 f/2.8 is very good indeed, though it lacks the range of the 17-55 f/2.8 I found it to be way better in terms of IQ and build quality...
 
lawrenceots said:
Nikon 18-70 is hard to beat for price and quality
Click to expand...

Naith said:
I'll second that. For the money you can't beat it.
Click to expand...

thirded. I sold mine, regrettably, and so bought another! (after only 2 weeks of not having it :lol:)
for only £100 or so used (I paid £102 delivered for my latest one) it is well worth the punt, the extra 15mm over the 18-55mm is handy and yea its just an awsome lens for the money.
The tammy 17-50mm is meant to be a cracker though
 
I think for a walkabout the 17-55 is too bulky and heavy though the image quality is second to none.

The 18-70 is the best value for money but the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is super sharp, lightweight and reasonably priced.

Thats the one I got and use on my D90. I got the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 as well but again its a bit bulky for the D90. I keep that on the D700.
 
Best value is the 18-70 Nikon, around £100 SH and a very good lens for money. Getting a Tamron 17-50 2.8 will give better iq but if you dont go wider than 28mm, the 28-75 2.8 is a belter and around £200 SH, I use this and many people do say it is not far off the Nikon 24-70 in terms of IQ.
 
Arkady said:
On a crop body, the 'old' 17-35 f/2.8 is very good indeed, though it lacks the range of the 17-55 f/2.8 I found it to be way better in terms of IQ and build quality...
Click to expand...

Unbelievable lens. Would be straight in my bag if i could find one at a reasonable price. A mate at work kitted himself out with one from the US (total bargain, $700 direct from Nikon) and I couldn't beleive how well built it is. IQ is exceptional but more than that is the solidity of it - really built for being thrown around.

lawrenceots said:
Nikon 18-70 is hard to beat for price and quality
Click to expand...

Agreed. Brilliant optics, probably the best modern day kit lens, certainly when compared to theses 18-55mm variants. Chunky front element made it look like a proper lens too. F/3.5 at the wide end and f/4.5 from about 50mm just means you might have to crank up the ISO only a little for natural light shooting. AF is very, very sure and quick :)

trevorbray said:
What about the Tammy 17-50 I think it is. Fast at 2.8
Click to expand...

Agreed. Fantastic. Build quality is much better than the RRP suggests for what you're actually getting and the optics are very good - struggled to see any noticeable difference when i compared against a rental Nikon 17-55mm. Good lens.
 
Last edited:
My walkabout lens is the tamron 17-50mm f2.8, image quality is perfect, was cheap to buy and is a light lens. Rumoured to be better quality than the NIKON version.

I do carry a 10-20 around just incase though.
 
IMO (having used both) the 18-70 knocks the 18-55 into a cocked hat as far as quality goes, although if you need the VR, you need the 18-55 VR and compromise on the quality! If you're only ever going to print to 6x4 or use shots on the web, the 18-55 will do just fine but larger prints will suffer.
 
+1 for 18-70mm lens..... unless you really do want to spend oodles of money!
 
... or the 16-85 VR which is my walkabout lens. Not quite so fast as the 18-70 but has VR, while the extra range particularly at the wide end makes a real difference. I am delighted with mine - it is a little sharper than the excellent 18-70.

Like the 17-55 is regarded as a bit overpriced (I bought mine before the big price rises) but it comes up in the classifieds from time to time.
 
A clue as to budget would help narrow things down somewhat.
 
In the Nikon range for a DX the 17 - 55 2.8 is a perfect companion to a D90 and can be had for 580 ish S/H

I bought mine as ex demo for 800 ish with a 3 year mac warranty - very pleased with it

I think new they were 1000+
 
another +1 for the 18-70, obviously not as fast as the 17-55mm but I massive step up from the 18-55mm. I've gone for the 18-70mm as a stop gap until I can save the pennies for the 17-55mm
 
If it's a walkabout lens you're looking for then I'd go for a Sigma 18-200mm (c£200) or 18-250mm (c£400).

Neither of which are fast, but then you have the two primes for that, however they do what a walkabout should do and that's cover the range you're likely to need 'walking about'. Certainly the Nikon 18-200mm is used by many a pro and the Sigmas consistently out perform it in reviews, so they're worth a look.
 
Go for Nikon 18-200mm ( relatively less speed when compared to f2.8 types) but it will suit all conditions/environment/types of shooting.

A general walkabout lens should not allow you think of another focal length and this is very handy. ( Don't go for Siggy or tammy with the same range because they are awful at f 6.3 which is their higher range and instead you can go for Nikon 18-70mm )
 
Have a look on here Pixel-peeper - just type in which lens & camera body etc & it will show what the images are like - which would give you some idea...

It may help then again it may not - so dont hold it against me :p
 
slt_roopan said:
A general walkabout lens should not allow you think of another focal length and this is very handy. ( Don't go for Siggy or tammy with the same range because they are awful at f 6.3 which is their higher range and instead you can go for Nikon 18-70mm )
Click to expand...

I refer the honourable gentleman to the recent review in AP whihc yet again puts the Sigma (this time the 18-250) above the Nikon. I've yet to see a review that rates the Nikkor over one of the Sigma offerings.
 
would the tamron 17-50 f2.8 be a better option than the sigma 24-70
 
alan_g said:
would the tamron 17-50 f2.8 be a better option than the sigma 24-70
Click to expand...

Your question is rather vague.

I'm assuming you don't have a full frame camera seeing as the Tamron is for an APS-C camera

On a crop 17-50 provides roughly the same field of view as 24-70 on full frame

You may find that 24-70 isn't wide enough but given that you haven't indicated what subject matter or most used focal lengths who can say:shrug:

Or do you mean which is sharper- good copies of both are pretty sharp.
 
I have a nikon d90 with the 18-105 kit legns and a tokina 12-24
and was looking for something inbetween those for a walkabout lens
 
alan_g said:
I have a nikon d90 with the 18-105 kit legns and a tokina 12-24
and was looking for something inbetween those for a walkabout lens
Click to expand...

Is the 18-105 not a walkabout lens- don't remember it being particularly heavy or bulky and many use it as such? Ok, it's not as wide as the 17-50 but other than that it would seem to cover the range of both lenses (the 17-50 and 24-70).

Of course, if you are wanting a faster lens with a constant aperture then fair enough but you haven't mentioned that. If you are wanting constant f2.8 I'd buy the Tamron (non-VC version) as it's for a crop.

As you have 12-105 covered perhaps invest in a 70-300 to give you more range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top