Walkabout Lens' - pro's & con's

MScotts

MScotts

Messages
1,172
Edit My Images
Yes
I use a 70-300vr for motorsport, but often find myself needing a walkabout lens to save swapping lenses/ lugging kit about...

I was considering the Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC EF-S and Sigma 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 DG Macro. Anyone got experience of what quality they produce along their range, and what the long end of the scale is like in comparison to the above Nikkor???

Other 'walkabout lens' recommendations are most welcome too!

TIA

--Andy :)
 
I used to have a 28-300 Tamron which I bought to save having to keep swapping lenses. Ended up getting shot of it because of the excessive distortions at the wide end and softness at the long end (above about 250mm). Neither problem would be as much of a problem if the photos are only going to be used at screen size or en-prints (6x4) but at larger print sizes they were enough for me to get rid of the lens to someone who was very happy with his results. The Nikkor 70-300 VR beats that Tamron (28-300) hands down in terms of sharpness at the long end.
As a walkabout lens, I now use a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 unless I'm expecting to need longer in which case it's either a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or the Nikkor 70-300 VR.
 
I have an 18-200vr which I bought to compliment the D200. I really like it and the range is very useable. The lens is sharp enough too, the only problem is lack of FF coverage (and hence the reason I am selling it at the moment in the for sales section). If I had not gone FF I would be keeping it and it is a shame that they haven't done a version that is FF.

I cannot give any form of comparison with the other lenses mentioned as I have not used them. I do like primes but it is often useful to have a zoom walkabout lens for when you do not know exactly what photos you will be taking beforehand.
 
A 50mm prime is normally my walkabout lens however if I need a little extra length I have the Tamron 24-135mm. :)
 
Is distortion & softness issues (as commented by Nod ^^^ about the Tamron), typical of these wide-range lenses? Shame that, as my thoughts were along the lines of replacing the 70-300 with the prospect of something more versatile/ a lot less than 70mm but maintaining about a 300mm reach too.

Perhaps it's worth considering a walkabout that's shorter then?
 
I think the 18-200 is pretty good re distortion can't say I have noticed any problems with it. Going from 18 all the way to 200 is a fair jump. It is not cheap at around £529 or something like that but coupled with a nifty fifty it is a really good pairing
 
I see what you're saying mate and appreciate the 200mm pointer(s) :thumbs: But I've had a 55-200vr in the past and found it didn't have the desired reach hence having the 70-300 nowadays. I suppose the happy medium would be to stick with the 300mm and go for something along the lines of 24-70 / 18/50 :shrug:
 
Have a look at the Sigma 18-200 OS - I'm happy with mine when I only want to carry the one lens...

(and it's a lot cheaper than the Nikkor equivalent)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top