Walkabout lens £400

dan_yorkshire

dan_yorkshire

Messages
2,398
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
Thom Hogan always seems to give an accurate balanced view on stuff LINK

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.
 
Martyn... said:
Thom Hogan always seems to give an accurate balanced view on stuff LINK

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
 
Tracer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dan_yorkshire said:
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.
Click to expand...

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