Walking around lens for Nikon

combat wombat

combat wombat

Messages
100
Name
George
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently bought a D7000 to replace my old D5000. I've got the 18-105 lens as my walking around telephoto which was great on the D5k but it doesn't seem to make the most of the D7000's low light performance.

So, can anyone recommend a good walking around lens that has a good range and isn't too slow (I find f5.6 not quick enough for me at 105mm), but also isn't ridiculously priced? The 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor looks lovely but I can't afford £1,200...

Please feel free to tell me that f-stops = cash and that the only way to get a fast telephoto lens is to pay for it...

:cool:
 
I guess you really need to define your budget but what about the nikon 24-120 f4. Camera price buster gives it as about £840 and it gives a decent walkabout length. If not then what about the older nikon 28-70 f2.8 - can be had for a bit less and by all accounts is a cracking lens (one I want :thumbs:).

Nick
 
On a crop sensor, maybe look at the 17-55 2.8, if you can afford it?

Failing that, the tamron 17-50 2.8 is a nice lens, or for the low end, look at the 18-70mm. It's not a 2.8 lens, but is pretty sharp, and an aperture range of F/3.5 - 4.5.
 
Woodsy said:
On a crop sensor, maybe look at the 17-55 2.8, if you can afford it?

Failing that, the tamron 17-50 2.8 is a nice lens, or for the low end, look at the 18-70mm. It's not a 2.8 lens, but is pretty sharp, and an aperture range of F/3.5 - 4.5.
Click to expand...

I'd say the Tamron is the better lens for walkaround. The Nikon is too big and heavy (though for 'professional' use thats the one to have on a dx body). Should be able to pick one up for less than £250 (non VC version which is sharper).
 
Great, thanks for the ideas, I'll take a look at some of them. The 24-120 f4 sounds interesting :thumbs:
 
terryt said:
Nikon 16-85mm :thumbs:
Click to expand...

+1 :thumbs:

It's pin sharp, will p!$$ all over the 18-70 and has VR... you can pick them up for just over 400 notes...
 
I'm also looking for something similar......
Nikon 16-85mm, That sounds an ideal range for what I need! I'm going check that out now!
Thanks:)
 
There is also the slightly faster yet reportedly great 17-70 Sigma OS to give you that much more reach than the 17-50 Tamron which would get my vote as well. The 24-120 is a good lens but it massive and heavy. Wouldn't want to be lagging around a D7000+that all the time with me. I wouldn't call it a walkaround combo :)
 
Last edited:
Earlier versions of the tamron were notorious for problematic focusing are you sure that the softness was due to incorrect focus. I found the Tamron to be extremely sharp lens.
 
Ffoeg said:
:plusone: for the 16-85

mine never fails to impress
Click to expand...

Still f5.6 at the long end though - does it offer anything worth paying for over the 18-105 that I've already got (apart from VR II)?
 
vrapan said:
Earlier versions of the tamron were notorious for problematic focusing are you sure that the softness was due to incorrect focus. I found the Tamron to be extremely sharp lens.
Click to expand...

The VC version is supposedly softer than the non-VC version... I looked at the VC version, and it was brand new...

As for any other differences compared to the 18-105, it's probably a bit sharper than that, although never having used one, I couldn't say for sure. Also, the overall build quality may be better on the 16-85... it ain't gonna be more expensive for no reason whatsoever...! :thumbs:
 
Nikon 18-200mm. Failing that the 18-105mm.

I find anything less than those 2 are just too short at the long end.
 
First stop for all budding photographers should be an equivalent of the kit lens (sort of 17-55 ish) but constant f2.8. You'll see quality jump massively but not much extra weight for wandering around.

Nikon, Sigma, Tokina and Tamrom do lenses in this range.

If thats not what you mean and by "walkabout" you actually mean an ultrazoom, try the Nikon 28-300. Very nice indeed. Good value for money and optically, pretty impressive for something with that range of focal length. However its not f2.8.

Alternatively if you are looking for something like a 24-70 or 70-200 I strongly advise you think hard about that as besides the cost, the weight is significant and I'd not suggest it for casual photography on a day out.
 
Nikon 24-85mm f2.8~4 about £250 to £300 s/h, basically pro glass.

Andy
 
Depends what you like shooting on your 'walk about' lens...
If there happens to be one mm that you use most, see about getting a prime in that range.


My walk about is a tokina 11-16... But I have a tendancy to shoot buildings and want to get them all in if poss :D

On the flickr link are some from Dublin, minor pp on some of them including HDR perspective some times.

If its more portrait to zoom, can't help as I don't have any. But as *** are saying the 16-85 is pin sharp, give that a go?

I personally wouldn't use an 18-200 as its soft... at least I found it soft (vr mki). I would go for primes, try the 30mm f1.4 siggy or a nikon 35mm f1.8?
 
Budget lens wise the only two I would be looking at would be the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non VC or the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 non VC, both are sharp, relatively cheap and produce good results.

If the wide end isn't important to you then go for the 28-75, if you shoot wide angle shots then the 17-50 is the lens for you.
 
Thanks all - some good ideas to look at. I've got the 35mm f1.8 nikkor which is great but I spend a lot of time at the long end of my 18-105 so the Tamrom 28-75 sounds interesting.

I tend to see detail rather than big picture and hence landscapes and wide angles don't seem to work for me!
 
This thread is interesting, people have different ideas on walkabout gear. For me if it is 1 camera and lens then it depends where I am going, but quiet often its my 70-200, if I am going out with the family in the forest, then my camera goes with me.
 
i had the same dilema not so long ago and went for Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. I'm getting it delivered today. I'm very currious how it will perform on my D300...
 
Fazi27 said:
i had the same dilema not so long ago and went for Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. I'm getting it delivered today. I'm very currious how it will perform on my D300...
Click to expand...

I have one of those - for my D300.

Its pretty good actually, my only negative point would be the focus speed isn't particularly good. Other than that, it small, light and perfectly sharp enough.

In many ways I like it more than the Nikon 24-70 I also have, which I am probably going to flog on because I've never liked it much in all the time I've had it. Yes, strange but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top