walk around lens (Page 2): This is my recommendation also - I have one

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

PhotoGator wrote:

I am seriously considering the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909805-REG/Sigma_884306_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

Review:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/705-sigma1770284os

Pictures taken with the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8

http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/sigma/sigma1770mmf2.84.5dcmacro/

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/17_70_28_45_dc_macro_hsm

This is my recommendation also - I have one - very GOOD ....Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4

riverlass Loc: northern California

MtnMan wrote:

18-300mm

Nikon had them on sale for $699 several months back. I don't know if it will happen again.

(I put the emphasis on walk around. Good for everything but lowlight...but not terrible. Will be a keeper if you upgrade to a new camera with better low light performance than the D3100...which isn't bad just been passed by)

I have this lens. Love it on my D5100. It's a bit heavy, but it covers just about everything that you would want to take a shot of.
I DIDN'T GET IT ON SALE. Darn! :-(

Cameoblue Loc: British Columbia Canada

bcheary wrote:

Check out the Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

A good friend of mine had this lens and absolutely loved it as his walk around lens. That was until his wife dropped it on their ceramic tile floor. It blew up so bad he did not even consider sending it for repair.

Mousie M Loc: Coventry, UK

Cameoblue wrote:

A good friend of mine had this lens and absolutely loved it as his walk around lens. That was until his wife dropped it on their ceramic tile floor. It blew up so bad he did not even consider sending it for repair.

Ouch! I didn't want to know that!

Mousie M Loc: Coventry, UK

GoofyNewfie wrote:

I have had a couple of great experiences with the EX line of Sigma lenses a d would buy an EX again, but this in not an EX. Great specs though. One thing I noticed was, along with providing the full-frame equivalent info, Sigma also gives the full-frame equivalent aperture, in terms of depth of field, as well. I think that says a lot about the company.

"Equiv. aperture: f/4.2-f/6 (full format equivalent, in terms of depth-of-field)"

I don't understand that. Surely the aperture and depth of field are the same whatever you mount it on, and don't have an equivalent in the same way as focal length/picture angle?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Mousie M wrote:

I don't understand that. Surely the aperture and depth of field are the same whatever you mount it on, and don't have an equivalent in the same way as focal length/picture angle?

What that means is the DOF of the 17mm at 2.8 is equal to a DOF of a 25 1/2mm ( full frame equivilent frame coverage) at F4.2 - ect. ect. It is of interest to people looking for shallow depths of field mostly.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

imagemeister wrote:

What that means is the DOF of the 17mm at 2.8 is equal to a DOF of a 25 1/2mm ( full frame equivilent frame coverage) at F4.2 - ect. ect. It is of interest to people looking for shallow depths of field mostly.

Good explanation.

It is an often overlooked characteristic of the different camera formats, but an important one in my book.

It's an advantage or disadvantage of whatever format you shoot.
If you want shallow depth of field, a larger format will be better than a smaller one, assuming you are using equivalent focal length (angle of view) at the same aperture. For more depth of field, a smaller format would be better.
This is ignoring image quality differences between sensor sizes.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Good explanation. br br It is an often overlooked... (show quote)

This is why pocket point-n-shoots do so well in macro work !

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

imagemeister wrote:

This is why pocket point-n-shoots do so well in macro work !

:thumbup: