Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
dpardue wrote:
Sorry, I guess that's a little important. I have the Nikon D3100.
Thanks
Nikon 18-200 is by far the best choice. The others are not as good.
My vote is for the tamron. I think it is very under rated. I have the 18-270 on my Nikon 7100 and love it. It sure beats constantly changing lenses when the one you have on the camera is close but not exactly the picture you are after. Every time you change the lens there is a chance for dirt or damage. For my budget I could not justify the cost of the Nikon lenses in that range and at least to my eyes, the lens is a great deal at 450.00. I would look at the 16-300 as well but it wasn't on the street yet when I got mine.
dpardue wrote:
I'm heading out to San Francisco in the couple months for vacation. I am looking for a good all around lenses so that I don't have to lug two or 3 around. Looking for suggestions.
Thank you.
Debbie
I like the Nikon 28-300mm. I'd also bring a wide angle. I use a Tokina 16-28 FX, but the also have a nice 11-16 DX lens.
I'm completely happy with my new Tamron 16-300, the most versatile walk-around lens you can get. I do general photography and freelance journalism with it on my Nikon D7100. The only time it has come off in recent months is when I do portrait work or serious specimen macros for my scientist wife. Then the beautiful Tamron F2.0 60mm macro goes on.
I highly recommend the
Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 VC PZD $449.00
or the Sigma equivalent (I have it in full frame only) 28-300mm.
Neither will steer you wrong.
All the lenses mentioned are pretty slow at 3.5. SF is a closed city in that things are close to each other like in any large city. The park where the bridge is located requires a good wide angle and the area around the city such as Muir woods requires fast glass it is very dark in there. Night photography in SF is really exciting, especially in Chinatown and that requires a fast lens. In short there really is not too much need for a lot of reach but there is a need for a fast lens. If it were me I would go with a wide 10 to 50 range zoom and at least 2.0 in f stop.
Another advantage of going wide and fast is that the camera is not so intrusive. People in cities don't like to be photographed and pointing a large lens at them is intrusive.
I've shot the Muir woods with the Tamron 18-300, it will at times require you to slow down and get a steady grip but you can get excellent shots and then run down the road to the bridge and keep right on shooting.
I'd take a Tamron 16mm to 300mm.
I also have the Tamron 18-270 on my Nikon and love it! I also think that for a walk-around lens the image quality is very good and I like that extra reach if needed. It is indeed easy to lug around.
If you prefer some lens speed and image quality, I can recommend the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and the Tamron SP 70-300 VC. Both are especially portable and sharp for their range - and relatively inexpensive.
I used the Nikon 18-300 on my D300s on a recent trip to San Fransico. I was very pleased.
I have the Tamron 18-270 and the 16-300. Both produce excellent results on the Canon 70D. I don't think you'd be dissapointed with either lens.
The Sigma 18-250 lens is $349 at Amazon.com. I have one and highly recommend it. I almost never have to take it off.
Mgpfonner wrote:
The Sigma 18-250 lens is $349 at Amazon.com. I have one and highly recommend it. I almost never have to take it off.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Pappy
What lens /lenses do you have .
In any case , don't buy. Rent and try, then make your own decision..
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.