Walk around lens (Page 5): Nikon has a 28 to 300 f 3.5 to 5.6 that's the perfect range and fairly light weight. And they have both a DX and FX version.

JohnKlingel

Nikon has a 28 to 300 f 3.5 to 5.6 that's the perfect range and fairly light weight. And they have both a DX and FX version.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

I agree, BTW have you tried the new Nike's they make for a great telephoto!

Kmgw9v wrote:

Here is some "prime crap".
I use a super zoom for travel, and a 35mm 1.4 prime for a street photography walk-around lens.
Completely a personal choice.

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

Avemal - Around here we call walk around "street shooting." The D500 should be good for that use due to its high resolution; it gives you considerable flexibility in lens choice. My vote would be to go for faster zoom lenses over long ones. I have the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6 that is mentioned above, and it's a good lens; however, for street shooting I use my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. The extra speed comes in handy outdoors because of how extreme variations in outdoor light can be - including when shooting in the shade. And then, because the lens is fast, you can shoot at lower ISO values. This enables you to crop (instead of zooming) without introducing undue noise. You would be amazed at how you can duplicate the effect of a long lens with a good, sharp, fast lens that is shorter. Not to mention how less bulky and heavy it is.

Although it's expensive, and it's a full-frame lens, I'd consider everybody's (Nikon) favorite, the famous 24-70mm f/2.8. It's one of the best buys around, if you can afford it, and it will give you a lifetime of service - particularly if some day you go to full frame. If budget is an issue, I'd look for the Sigma, now around $400. I'll post a couple images as examples. Look for "Brewerytown-Philadelphia."

jrh1354 Loc: Dayton, Ohio

WayneT wrote:

A really good one is the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. I have the 18-140 that I use all the time as a walk around and it's an exceptional all around lens. The only thing I'm missing is the extra reach.

Concur. the Nikkor 18-140mm is an outstanding walk-around lens.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Reinaldokool wrote:

Everyone will give you a different answer. My choice, and I have made it three times, is an 18mm-200mm VR. I bought my Nikon lens for my D90. Sold it with the camera, but bought a new VRII for my D7000 and moved it to my D7100. It was a great lens to cover 90% of my needs.

When I bought my Sony a6000 and then a6300, I bought the analogous Sony lens.

The 18-300 is a good lens, but it adds rarely used weight and a bit more distortion at the long end.

Dstortion is correctable in photoshop, is it not?

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

Brewerytown - Philadelphia

46mm f/2.8 1/125s ISO 280 focused 1/3 of the way down the block
46mm f/2.8 1/125s ISO 280 focused 1/3 of the way...

Crop. Had I focused on the sign, the image would have been sharper.
Crop. Had I focused on the sign, the image would ...

MtnMan Loc: ID

avemal wrote:

I am using Nikon D500 and interested in a walk around lens. Any suggestions? Thanking you advance.

Sigma 17-50 f2.8 works for me on my D5300 most of the time. It is the only one I take on most trips involving air travel.

But for some situations I put on my 28-300. If starting over I might go back to the 55-300 or get a 70-300 for those times: when wildlife might be in the offing.

When wildlife is the main objective I lug the 200-500, and sometimes even my D800.

MtnMan Loc: ID

JohnKlingel wrote:

Nikon has a 28 to 300 f 3.5 to 5.6 that's the perfect range and fairly light weight. And they have both a DX and FX version.

I believe the "DX version" is 18-300. My wife has that lens on her D5300. It is all she uses. I think the 28-300 is a tad heavier, a smidge better on image quality and higher priced, and as noted it is an FX lens.

There is a new version of the 18-300. It isn't necessarily better...do some checking before going that direction.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

MtnMan wrote:

I believe the "DX version" is 18-300. My wife has that lens on her D5300. It is all she uses. I think the 28-300 is a tad heavier, a smidge better on image quality and higher priced, and as noted it is an FX lens.

There is a new version of the 18-300. It isn't necessarily better...do some checking before going that direction.

My understanding is it's a little better, a little slower (at 6.3 instead of 5.6), and a little cheaper.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

avemal wrote:

Like to get 300mm zoom light weight

Sometimes you can't have everything you want. A complex zoom covering 18-300mm has too many lens elements to be "light weight" too. Maybe someone will make one with plastic lenses to meet your desire for light weight, but I doubt it
would be as good as the optics made of glass, crystal and rare earth elements.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

VR is useless when shooting action...

Thomas902 wrote:

the lack VR is irrelevant since you'll be at 1/1000 second or better... The new PF version of the 300mm nikkor has some perplexing issues with it's VR in the 1/60 to 1/200 second range... Nikon is still endeavoring to find a permanent firmware fix here...

Hope this helps...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Twardlow wrote:

Dstortion is correctable in photoshop, is it not?

Not all distortion is correctable. To correct distortion fully you are often modifying areas a bit that don't require correction, and although the lines may look straight when you've finished, in the process you have actually added some distortion to accomplish this. Better to start with a lens that has less distortion in the first place.

Jim Bob

mwsilvers wrote:

Not all distortion is correctable. To correct distortion fully you are often modifying areas a bit that don't require correction, and although the lines may look straight when you've finished, in the process you have actually added some distortion to accomplish this. Better to start with a lens that has less distortion in the first place.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

mwsilvers wrote:

Not all distortion is correctable. To correct distortion fully you are often modifying areas a bit that don't require correction, and although the lines may look straight when you've finished, in the process you have actually added some distortion to accomplish this. Better to start with a lens that has less distortion in the first place.

Thank you for your answer. Love the 18-300 and will continue to use it.

It must be a better lens than I am a photographer. ;-)

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

My FF walk-around lens is the Nikon 28-300mm. The DX walk-around lens is the 18-250. For my interests, the reach is important. If it wasn't the FF would be my Nikon 24-120mm and the DX lens would be Nikon 18-105mm.