Walking around lens
Jun 14, 2023 09:42:16 #
Mac wrote:
The 24-120mm and 24-85mm are good options, but don’t rule out a good prime lens. A prime will be smaller and lighter than a zoom, and that would be an advantage when walking around for landscapes. And with a DX camera you will probably want a max aperture of 18mm or wider for landscapes.
I use a nikon 24-85 3.5 4.5 vr if lens great travel all around lens one of the sharpest mid range zooms, on my camera 80% of the time.
Jun 14, 2023 09:44:17 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
imagemeister wrote:
24mm is not really wide enough on DX - is = to 35mm on full frame.
It can be. Depends on what you are doing and how you are doing it.
Jun 14, 2023 09:52:07 #
larryepage wrote:
It can be. Depends on what you are doing and how you are doing it.
You look up the angry photographer site on u tube and you will see what he has to say about this lens.All my lenses in my bag are on his recommendations and great lenses the guy knows his stuff about nikon lenses.It won't cost you anything to see for youself.
Jun 14, 2023 10:23:59 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Jim Bianco wrote:
You look up the angry photographer site on u tube and you will see what he has to say about this lens.All my lenses in my bag are on his recommendations and great lenses the guy knows his stuff about nikon lenses.It won't cost you anything to see for youself.
I have two of these lenses. Got the first one 4 years ago. Use them for both DX and FX along with my 17-55mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses. Don't need to read what anyone else says about them.
Jun 14, 2023 10:35:36 #
bobburk3 wrote:
I'm looking for a good lens to use on my Nikon D72... (show quote)
I don’t PHOTOGRAPH with Nikon. So I am not completely sure if my recommendations will work for you. For my walk around I will use a Canon 28-135mm lens. I also carry a prime Canon 50mm. I also carry a 70-300mm and a Rokinon 24mm Tilt Shift. These make my bag a little heavy and I take one or two lenses out to lighten my load.
Jun 14, 2023 11:05:10 #
I’m strictly an amateur and I replaced the kit lenses with a Tamron 18 - 200 and I rarely take it off.
Jun 14, 2023 11:09:35 #
This sounds like a nice lens with a good range. But it may have too large a reach. As for kit lenses, as an amateur like myself, my kit lenses haven’t failed me yet.
Jun 14, 2023 12:47:37 #
R.G. wrote:
The only lens I ever had for my D5200 was the 16-85mm - which gives the equivalent of a 24-120mm on an FX camera. I've seen more than one person say they prefer it over the 16-80mm 2.8. The 16-85 is sharp, has good contrast and very little fringing.
I currently have the 16-85mm on my D7200. I like it a lot.
Jun 14, 2023 13:42:09 #
bobburk3 wrote:
.....What do you mean by "lacking at the wide end"?
What Imagemeister said. To be considered wide angle, a lens's focal length would have to be sub-35mm. That's on a full frame camera.
If you're not familiar with the connection between angle of view and sensor size, I'd be amazed if you couldn't find a thread on that subject (there must be dozens by now
). A quick summary is that for any given focal length, the smaller the sensor the narrower the angle of view. The usual reference is the angle of view that you get with a full frame (35mm film size) sensor camera (FF or FX). That's referred to as the full frame equivalent (FF Equiv) focal length. To get the same angle of view that a 24mm focal length would give you on a FX camera, you would have to use a 16mm focal length on a DX camera.
Landscape is just one of the areas where you would benefit from having wide angle options.
Jun 14, 2023 14:15:56 #
All you have to do is switch from Nikon to Canon and get the latest EF-S 18-135 which is a perfect walk around lens. (Sorry. LOL)
Jun 14, 2023 14:18:45 #
Here is an example of the Sigma - https://www.ebay.com/itm/374731143026?epid=141784946&hash=item573fb77772:g:JpgAAOSwncpka95K&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4PbACQ3eDnCZjiVGeI9QY5zXnJf8IEC8yQ0Va9LT82Fw8N7y0GLMiqmDVqEJqCwLIuvHnzcaeCDn7%2Fdv1fdTkKDMK40NPpwJse9mZiA%2BUm5OWstknh9I%2BCcihpdJ4ylU8NVu4lzKY4q72%2Fs2trpAtKdDFzZ29WmhIBecNL%2FiiU08QxLsuNZvhCuG%2BE%2Fxr0e9iCBsO5OVTWTE0bJh78JQPqawuBckfR61XidXjKWu%2BlsYgGXga6jAhpia8%2F%2FIh%2F83AtWYM5YUmX1AimLFTFJuGur9XmUaeOnskpeEqnxr0CLf%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_Kv1bGXYg
SEE the user reviews .......
.
SEE the user reviews .......
.
Jun 14, 2023 14:29:52 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX would be a great choice, but is rather pricey at $1500! However, I see B&H has a couple used ones at $599 and $779.
A little less expensive, a little smaller and lighter, another option is the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR... sells for $1067 new, but also can be found used for a lot less. It's a wee bit wider and a little bit longer, eliminates a gap between 55mm and 70mm (which is pretty meaningless). Plus it has VR which is nice. But it does lose a stop of light at the 80mm end of the zoom range.
Even less expensive, a bit lighter and smaller is the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR... Appears to no longer be available new. Used copies are between $200 and $300. It has a lot of advantages similar to the 16-80mm, but loses another stop of brightness at the long end and 2/3 stop at the wide end.
If considering either of the 16-??? lenses I'd look for reviews that give image quality comparisons.
To me, any of the above make more sense than FX lenses such as 24-85mm or 24-120mm.
A little less expensive, a little smaller and lighter, another option is the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR... sells for $1067 new, but also can be found used for a lot less. It's a wee bit wider and a little bit longer, eliminates a gap between 55mm and 70mm (which is pretty meaningless). Plus it has VR which is nice. But it does lose a stop of light at the 80mm end of the zoom range.
Even less expensive, a bit lighter and smaller is the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR... Appears to no longer be available new. Used copies are between $200 and $300. It has a lot of advantages similar to the 16-80mm, but loses another stop of brightness at the long end and 2/3 stop at the wide end.
If considering either of the 16-??? lenses I'd look for reviews that give image quality comparisons.
To me, any of the above make more sense than FX lenses such as 24-85mm or 24-120mm.
Jun 14, 2023 16:52:18 #
Hi Bob. I have the 7200 and 70-200f/4 too and a vintage 75-300 for when I have some space and don't need to go wide. For landscapes and wide angle a Nikon 10-20 and for tighter spaces and group shots a Sigma 17-50. I have read that the 18-200 and 24-120 are excellent lenses. I use MPB for
used lenses
used lenses
Jun 14, 2023 20:19:00 #
Burkley
Loc: Park City
I would walk with the Nikon 18-200 or 18-300 and put a Nikon 10-24 in my bag. The Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Lens is very highly rated for landscapes. If you want something fast the 50mm 1.8 is a nice lens.
Jun 14, 2023 21:47:06 #
nervous2 wrote:
I currently have the 16-85mm on my D7200. I like it a lot.
I am a bit picky when it comes to my glass. I normally shoot with full frame Nikon bodies. However, when I do occasionally shoot with my crop sensor body, it’s always with the Nikon 16-85 VR glass. That lens delivers the goods. 👍
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.