Nikon walkabout lens

Astraeus

Astraeus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,063
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
As the long-overdue upgrade to a D90 is now pending, I need to begin to budget for lenses. The 50mm f/1.8 is a shoe-in as soon as one goes up in the Classifieds and I'll retain the 55-200mm from my D40 setup. However, I feel there is a gap in my lenses there - something for landscape work but also with a bit of flexibility.

I haven't found myself using much above 24mm on the Nikon 18-55mm I've got at the moment but will I end up regretting it if I go for a wide angle partnered with the 50mm? Is there important focal length missing there? Also, there's the option of selling the 55-200mm too and getting a 18-200mm VR Nikon? Or the Nikon 16-85mm and scrap the 55-200mm.

Which lens for ~£150 (cheaper is better :)), either new or second-hand, would people recommend?

Hoping to get all of this fixed up in the next two weeks before I jet off to America and Canada! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
I've just bought a 18 -70mm for my D40 to replace the old kit lens. It has a much bigger filter at 67mm and all metal fittings. Also has the semi auto focus and a much nicer action. Picked it up on e bay for £100.00 and I am enjoying it so far.
Not sure if that helps.
Dunc
 
PandyD40 said:
I've just bought a 18 -70mm for my D40 to replace the old kit lens. It has a much bigger filter at 67mm and all metal fittings. Also has the semi auto focus and a much nicer action. Picked it up on e bay for £100.00 and I am enjoying it so far.
Not sure if that helps.
Dunc
Click to expand...



Plus one for the 18-70mm....fantastic lens for the price...mine is on the camera almost all the time, very good focal length range...perfect all round do everything lens. As PandyD40 says, its also very well built, with more metal in it than the kit type lenses. I too got mine of ebay for around £100.
 
I think that it has now been replaced as a kit lens by the 18 -105 mm and people are trading up or just have them spare. For the money I think it is great value. £180.00 brand new on amazon.
 
nikon 16-85 .....overpriced for what it is....:thumbsdown:

so
Tokina 11-16
Nikon 35mm AF-S DX 1.8
Nikon 18-70
Nikon 70-300 VR

and having NONE of these I can suggest them with impunity..........:lol::lol::lol:
 
neilos100 said:
Plus one for the 18-70mm....fantastic lens for the price...mine is on the camera almost all the time, very good focal length range...perfect all round do everything lens. As PandyD40 says, its also very well built, with more metal in it than the kit type lenses. I too got mine of ebay for around £100.
Click to expand...

I agree with the 18-70mm but Nikon have stopped making it so if you find a new one pick it up, otherwise second hand only.

However, the 18-105 VR might be more practical as a Walkabout lens.

The 18-200mm would be more than you budget, but you could look to pass on the 55-200mm and just have the one lens??
 
I've just got a 18-105 Nikon lens from ebay, brand new, £140 posted!
Ok, its only the D90 kit lens, but I do have a 70-300 to extend my focal range.

Its an amazing lens, so much better than my 18-55, mainly the fact I can take better pics now.
 
I have the 18-200 VR and find it covers all my needs on a day to day basis. I bought mine in Canada about £100 cheaper than the uk even over duty free so saved there and love it. Mind you I still find myself looking for longer sometimes but as a daily walkabout it's a great choice :)
 
DrRusty said:
I agree with the 18-70mm but Nikon have stopped making it so if you find a new one pick it up, otherwise second hand only.

However, the 18-105 VR might be more practical as a Walkabout lens.

The 18-200mm would be more than you budget, but you could look to pass on the 55-200mm and just have the one lens??
Click to expand...

That's what I'd do - if the 18-200mm was optically superior then I'd just keep that and my 50mm. At the minute, I'm struggling to think how many pictures I've ever taken at focal lengths above 30mm with the exception of portraits (now handled, or soon to be handled, by the 50mm). Can Lightroom tell me how many photos in a catalogue are at what focal lengths?

Reason I ask is that I'm beginning to think I could get away with the 50mm and a landscape/architecture wide angle.
 
Puddleduck had thread on this recently (focal length & lightroom).

Had the 18-105, decent lens and better than kit. Then the plastic mount broke, so got a 18-70 and found this a much better lens quality wise, and as others have said, great value and worth getting.

It seems to me you need something like a Sigma 10-20, but they are around £260 second hand.
 
I have just got a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, Fantastic peace of kit.
I cannot recommend this lens enough, pin sharp and colours are fantastic. I can post a few examples of this lens if you require them. I have also done a test between this lens and another well known more expensive one, lets just say that the results came as a surprise, the Sigma won outright.

I looked at other lenses on my list and decided to go with this one as the other lenses all fell just below or just above (ie 10-20 / 10-24 and 70-200).
 
My choice for a 'walkabout' lens on FX (and how I hate that expression!) would be the 35mm f/2 - unless I'm out for a specific job, it's permanently on one of my D3 bodies...
For a DX body then a 24 or 28mm lens...
 
Focal_length_graph.jpg


I guess that answers the question about what focal lengths I need covering by a lens. It's quite clear I don't need anything beyond 55mm really and, at a stretch, 18-70mm would cover everything I've done and been happy with.

I think I'd use more on the wide angle side of things so 16mm onwards looks appropriate for the majority of shots.
 
I'm really impressed with the Nikon AF-S 16-85mm, I know some people say it's overpriced but I bought mine from the USA so was cheaper to start with.

The 2mm less at the short end over the kit lens I've found useful on several occasions. It is solidly built, quick to focus and I find little distortion throughout the entire focal range.
 
Would anyone be so kind as to take a little wander through my Flickr and see what sort of photographs I'd be missing out on if I just had a wide-angle (possibly 12-24mm Tokina) and a Nifty Fifty?

I guess I'd walkaround with the 50mm on, doing people, architecture and scenes with that - but would it be too close for architecture? I assume the 10-20mm would really only be used for landscape work (which makes up 90% of my photography), or would that be handy for architecture and buildings work too?
 
Last edited:
18-70 is a superb lens and it seems thats all you need. If you were wanting to go below 18, then I would recommend a 16-85 vr. Yes, they are a bit pricey, but I found it a very useful lens, being able to go down to 16mm comes in handy so many times too. Second hand is not too painful!
Of course theres always the Tokina 11-16 if you want to stay below 18mm........

Allan
 
I've got an 18-135mm lens, used to use it on holiday as it saved having to lug a load of lenses around, was rare that I needed anything more than that.
 
MadMacro said:
oh yes. Better for, in fact.
Click to expand...

Super. And the Tokina 12-24mm seems to really punch above its weight in this class. I can't afford the 11-16mm nor the Nikon 12-24mm but the Tokina seems affordable for me. :thumbs:

So if I have the following covered, what sort of photography would not be covered?

12-24mm
50mm
55-200mm
 
allanm said:
18-70 is a superb lens and it seems thats all you need. If you were wanting to go below 18, then I would recommend a 16-85 vr. Yes, they are a bit pricey, but I found it a very useful lens, being able to go down to 16mm comes in handy so many times too. Second hand is not too painful!

Allan
Click to expand...

I'd echo what Allan said. :thumbs:

I was lucky enough to get the 18-70mm when I got my first DSLR, the D70, and it was an excellent lens. :) The 16-85mm was a big upgrade though. The extra 2mm difference at the wide end makes a big difference. ;) I like the overlap with the 70-300mm which means I don't have to swap lenses as much. :) You could get a 18-105mm or a 18-135mm, but I don't like to have too large a range in a lens as that brings compromise imho. Lots of people are happy with them, and lots of people like the 18-200 too.

The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS Macro HSM could be one to consider though to get a bit of a faster lens.

I'd go for the 16-85mm though, and I got a replacement 16-85mm when my first one got stolen. Never considered anything else because I was so happy with it. :D



PS How did you get the graph of your focal length usage Astraeus?
 
Last edited:
lensworx said:
I have just got a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, Fantastic peace of kit.
I cannot recommend this lens enough, pin sharp and colours are fantastic. I can post a few examples of this lens if you require them. I have also done a test between this lens and another well known more expensive one, lets just say that the results came as a surprise, the Sigma won outright.

I looked at other lenses on my list and decided to go with this one as the other lenses all fell just below or just above (ie 10-20 / 10-24 and 70-200).
Click to expand...


I've been thinking about getting this lens. Can you tell me what the AF speed is like. I've heard reports of a pretty slow AF compared to the Nikon equivalent.

Thanks
 
The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS Macro HSM

have one of these ...but not OS...well pleased

bought off here about £140 IIRC
 
redhed17 said:
I'd echo what Allan said. :thumbs:

I was lucky enough to get the 18-70mm when I got my first DSLR, the D70, and it was an excellent lens. :) The 16-85mm was a big upgrade though. The extra 2mm difference at the wide end makes a big difference. ;) I like the overlap with the 70-300mm which means I don't have to swap lenses as much. :) You could get a 18-105mm or a 18-135mm, but I don't like to have too large a range in a lens as that brings compromise imho. Lots of people are happy with them, and lots of people like the 18-200 too.

The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS Macro HSM could be one to consider though to get a bit of a faster lens.

I'd go for the 16-85mm though, and I got a replacement 16-85mm when my first one got stolen. Never considered anything else because I was so happy with it. :D



PS How did you get the graph of your focal length usage Astraeus?
Click to expand...

If you pay a visit to this thread and visit the link at the bottom of the first thread, you can use that program on all of your pictures to see where stuff is taken.

Thanks for the input folks but, using the graph I've shown above, is there any reason to compromise IQ by getting a zoom with a long focal range if I haven't used many of the above focal lengths? The 50mm f/1.8 will cover the 40-60mm range if I move with my feet and the 12-24mm will cover 18-26mm if I move about.
 
On DX, the 18-70 was what was almost always on the front, while on 35mm and digital equivalent, a 24-70 is now the lens of choice.
 
I'm kind of wary in regards to them, but I'd keep an eye on the upcoming 55-300 VR and the 28-300 lenses. If their IQ rivals existing lenses in these categories, these new glass units might be the ticket for daily walkabouts.
 
Nethawk said:
I'm kind of wary in regards to them, but I'd keep an eye on the upcoming 55-300 VR and the 28-300 lenses. If their IQ rivals existing lenses in these categories, these new glass units might be the ticket for daily walkabouts.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they'll be outside of my price range. :nono:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top