Nikon Walkabout Lens (£500 Budget)

B

bildo

Messages
606
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking for a lens for days out, it'll be used for all kinds of shooting from architecture to portraits and just about everything else.

I've currently got a 35mm prime, and a 70-300mm, also the kit lens which I'm hoping to replace with the one I'm currently looking for.

I'm currently looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G, I think the 16mm end would be very useful and the 85mm should be just about enough reach for most things.

Is there anything else I should be considering in the same sort of price bracket? Would rather not go over £500 for the time being.
 
If I go out with my D300 I nearly always have my 18-200VR attached. It pretty well covers everything and the VR can be very useful.
I think £500 would certainly get you a good s/h one. A new one would be less than £600.
 
I assume the extra 2mm wouldn't be quite as vital as I'm thinking it could be?

I had definitely considered the 18-200, I can't see myself using the higher end all that much, but it's always nice to know it's there.

I think you may have a valid point, going to look into it a little more, thanks.
 
Just bought a 16-85mm, so far it's looking good. The extra 2mm makes a difference!

Maybe a s/h Nikon 17-55 f2.8 would be well worth a look?
 
The 18-200 is a versatile lens, but you lose on IQ, it is not a lens to get if sharpness is important.

Depends on the focal length you shoot. Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 are good value, or for £500 second hand you get the Nikon 17-55.

I believe the new 24-85 VR is a good lens too.
 
cambsno said:
The 18-200 is a versatile lens, but you lose on IQ, it is not a lens to get if sharpness is important.

Depends on the focal length you shoot. Tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 are good value, or for £500 second hand you get the Nikon 17-55.

I believe the new 24-85 VR is a good lens too.
Click to expand...

Whilst sharpness isn't particularly important, I always like to get them as sharp as I can, I was thinking the 18-200 was a little bit too good to be true!

I think 24/28 are a little higher than I'd like, if anything I'd like to be below 18 but I think 18's just about as low as I'd settle.

Will have a look at the Tamron's, as I hadn't even considered them.

Is the 17-55 a lot sharper than the 16-85 I was considering originally?

Only been doing photography for a few months and the initial quest of buying the right lenses sure does hammer the bank balance. I still want a really wide lens on top of this, and also a 70-200 f2.8!
 
It's hard not recommend anything other than the 17-55 nikon as a kit lens replacement and an all round lens. The 16-85 is a more versatile focal length but much slower. Having gone for a 2.8 zoom, can't imagine going back to a variable aperture lens.

I got my 17-55 on tp for £500. If you're not fussed by the variable aperture then the cheaper option might be best for you.
 
donkey_kong said:
It's hard not recommend anything other than the 17-55 nikon as a kit lens replacement and an all round lens. The 16-85 is a more versatile focal length but much slower. Having gone for a 2.8 zoom, can't imagine going back to a variable aperture lens.

I got my 17-55 on tp for £500. If you're not fussed by the variable aperture then the cheaper option might be best for you.
Click to expand...

Agree. Don't always shoot wide open but nice to have and generally 2.8 lenses are better than slower ones.
 
I've found the Nikon 16-85mmVR to be a great lens, and I would recommend to anyone.

Imho, it is the best combination of quality, range, size and price for a DX camera. The extra 2mm makes a surprising difference compared to the usual 18mm to whatever. The 85mm overlaps nicely with the 70-300mm, and have found that I don't need to change lenses as often. :)

I like it so much, I'm on my 2nd lens. ;) :D
 
The tamron 17-50 2.8 is brilliant. Rave reviews everywhere and pretty cheap too. Can't fault mine ( I have the vc version )
 
Hi Bill, I have a surplus to requirements Nikon 16-85mm VR that you can try on your D5100 if you wish (I see that you are from Essex as well :))
 
Last edited:
Grays of Westminster are the best Nikon-only dealer in the UK and describe the 17-55 as:

Nikon's ultimate DX zoom lens of the most exceptional optical performance in combining excellent zoom range with the highest possible resolution

The 16-85 is a very good lens (I've got one), but you might want to consider the well respected (and cheap!) 18-70 while you save up for the 17-55mm.
 
The 17-55 used to be my walkabout lens on my D90, cost £500 s/h.

If I went back to crop I'd get another.
 
I've not had the Nikon 17-55 but had the tamron 17-50.

If I were in the market for a walkabout lens I'd get the 18-200 again.

For now my compact is my walkabout ;)

The 18-200 offers fantastic range, VR, 1:3 magnification, good sharpness (unless you get images straight from RAW with no sharpening at all.

That's my vote :)
 
My walk about is the 16-85. I think it's a superb light lens that serves its purpose very well. Extremely happy with the IQ.
 
bildo said:
I'm currently looking at the Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G...
Click to expand...
I sold mine to a friend, and it looks very, very good on his D5100.

Only downside is, that every time we meet, he feel he must praise "his" choice over and over and over... :wacky: :D


I loved it too on the D300s. If only it could go to 12mm, it would never have been replaced...
 
Sorry for going AWOL on the thread!

My reason was that I went away for the weekend, I had intended to do an impulse buy whilst there but couldn't decide which lens I wanted!

Still a bit stuck in the middle, however I was using my 18-55mm kit lens to see how I found the focal lengths to help me decide where I wanted to be. As awesome as f2.8 sounds, I found the 55mm end just wasn't quite as long as I wanted in some scenarios. I definitely need more reach than that.

I have read quite a lot of bad things about the 18-200, whilst it sounds more or less perfect on the surface it sounds like a few corners have been cut to provide such a great length. I also have my 70-300mm for when I really do need that extra bit of reach, since it's not too heavy I don't normally mind carrying it about.

I keep coming back to the 16-85, whilst given the choice I'd prefer something in the 2.8 region there doesn't seem to be anything with more length variety.

Another positive is that the 16-85 and 70-300 share the 67mm filter size, so it means I don't have to go throwing money into filters again.

Anything I'm overlooking before I give the 16-85 a shot?
 
Last edited:
The only other option I can think of is a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4, which has slightly shorter range than the 16-85mm VR, and is still variable aperture through the zoom, but a stop better. I've never seen or used one though. :shrug: But it is a lot cheaper, but maybe that is for a reason. :shrug: But then 3rd party lenses are generally cheaper that the manufacturers own equivalent. Maybe someone with experience will leave a post.

As I said earlier, I've been very happy with my 16-85mm VR, and even if I had loads of money to spend, I still think it is the best overall package for a DX camera and the one I'd still buy. :)
 
Based on the last two responses I went on eBay to see what deals were out there on the 16-85, Currys/PC World are doing unsealed ones for £299, so I decided to go with that. Used them for my 70-300mm with no issue at all so fingers crossed I get a good one! It has 3 months warranty if it all goes wrong.

Thanks for all the help and advice chaps, might not have the best lens out there but with only 6 months experience I think I've still got a lot to learn and maybe I'll learn to love the 17-55 range!
 
I had the 18 - 200 when I started out but its a jack of all and master of none. Its great on nice bright days but not so much on the grey days. I always felt I wanted more, so I sold mine and got a 16 - 85 which is a great lens for around £300 sh.

I then bought the non vc tammy as everyone raved about it, the Nikon got sold . I got £100 change from that swap

For £500 you could get the tammy and a sigma wide angle and maybe a set of Hitech filters
 
I was in this position in April. I got a used 17-55 2.8 from MPB. It's a heavy old lump though so if that or VR is important then maybe the 16-85 is the lens for you.

Also bare in mind a DX only lens is a bit of a lock in. I made a conscious decision to not get an FX compatible lens, like the 16-35 f4 VR (but that's more expencive) and stay on DX. Biggest pro here is the DX lens prices are coming down a bit now everyone seems to have the FX bug.
 
bildo said:
Based on the last two responses I went on eBay to see what deals were out there on the 16-85, Currys/PC World are doing unsealed ones for £299, so I decided to go with that. Used them for my 70-300mm with no issue at all so fingers crossed I get a good one! It has 3 months warranty if it all goes wrong.

Thanks for all the help and advice chaps, might not have the best lens out there but with only 6 months experience I think I've still got a lot to learn and maybe I'll learn to love the 17-55 range!
Click to expand...

Let us know how you get on with the 16-85. Ive been looking at this lens a lot recently as it seems perfect for what I want. Hopefully ill be able to pick one up in about 2 weeks time, so will be interested in your views on it.

Cheers

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top