D300 "walk around lens"?

Hi there,

 

I'll be getting my D300 pretty soon and was wandering if the new 16-85 vr lens

is really as good as it is.. Over the years i've aquired several very nice

nikon lenses (af28 1.4, afs17-35, af60 micro, af85 1.4, af180 2.8, afs300 4.0)

but also briefly owned the afs24-85. While optically quite good, I could never

get used to the "plastic" feel and the 3.5-5.6 aperture shift. In other words:

will the 16-85 be usefull for me, or would a afs24-70 be a better option?

 

I know its kind of a "luxury problem" but hey..

 

Kind regards,

 

Rob.

I don't think the 24-70mm will be wide enough. I use the 18-70mm AFS dx om my d 300. Lens quality is good to very good. It is plastic and has thta aperture shift you don't like. But it presents a small profile and does not weigh a ton. Joe Smith

A 24-70 zoom will not give you much range on the wide-angle end of things. I would daresay it's inadequate in this respect. For a general, "walkaround" lens you probably want something that zooms out to the 16-18mm. point. Personally, I use the 18-200mm. VR as my general-purpose lens, and I think it's terrific. The 16-85 VR is getting good reviews--considering its price, it had better :). The question then becomes whether the reduced zoom range/convenience is offset by superior performance within the more limited zoom range.

if i was just getting a walkaround lens for the d300 now, i'd get the 16-85 over the 18-200. if constant aperture is a big deal for you get the expensive 17-55 or the modestly priced tamron 17-50. then again, since you already have the 17-35 for the wide end, what about the nikkor 35-70? i'm a little concerned about the QC problems with the 24-70, which shouldn't happen at that price, so you might want to wait for the next batch.

how's about a 12-24 f/4?

My brand new D300 being my first Nikon SLR and having no lenses to start with I chose the 16-85 as the lens to order with the camera.

 

I find it very good. The build quality is very good and optically I have zero complaints. It's a great lens just to carry around on the camera. Range is great with the DX crop factor. Size is great as a carry. The VR is a DEFINATE bonus - don't underestimate it's value.

 

It is what it is. Not a "pro" lens but a great one that covers a multitude of situations adequtely. I imagine that for my needs this lens, a 70-300mm VR, and the 50mm 1.4 will be all the lenses I own for a good while.

I did a lot of research on this same topic and settled on the 18-200 VR. I must have bought

a good one because it has been a great "walk around" lens. No problems with creep or other

significant issues. See Matt Laur's and Tim Keller's work for some nice examples. I'm very

satisfied.

Here is an example:<div></div>

I second Richard Armstrong for the 18-200.

 

Speed wise, the 16-85 doesn't offert very exciting features over the 18-200 for approx the same price. I can most of the time deal with the 2 mm difference at the wide end, but the long end of the 18-200 is way more versatile.

 

But if you need to buy something, with what you already (wow) have, I think the 12-24 f4 is a best buy, as suggested by Nic Coury.

Having purchased the 18-200mm I would not recommend it unless you don't need to shoot at 18mm very often. It has pretty severe distortion at this focal length and I found it unacceptable. The 18-70mm is an excellent lens at an excellent price. I recently upgraded from that lens to the new 16-85mm VR zoom, which is leaps and bounds better than the 18-200mm, as well as going wider, which for me is significant as most of my photography doesn't go beyond 70-85mm. I have the 70-300mm ED zoom if I need more telephoto.

I think Dave had a really bad one.

 

I find my 18-200 to be the ultimate walk-around lens. I never find the distortion to be a real

problem because I'm not a professional brick wall shooter, and I'd rather have the 85-200

range on my lens than the 16-18 for the same price. I shoot a LOT between 24 and 50 on

that lens and find that it is a real sweet spot there, too.

 

But keep all that other stuff you have for sure!

The 18-200mm and 16-85mm might be ok. I also have the 18-70mm AF-S on it occasionally.

The 18-200 will distort at 18, but you have to be aware of what you're shooting. If you have close in shots of vertical uprights like trees or buildings, you'll see it. If you are doing a wide landscape shot, you'll be fine.

Rob,

 

Check out this thread...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00P155

And look at Matt Laur's examples from Verona, Italy to see how versatile the 18-200 can be.

Nikon has a great deal going on right now - D300 W/18-200 VR for under $2200.

The 24-85 f28-4 is a good one and the 16-85 would also be good. The latter is only for Dx bodies though.

 

We are talking about a 'walk around' lens after all. Not a top notch lens, right?

Oh yeah, I use the 18-200 for a walk around.

I use the Nikon AF 24-85 f/2.8-4 D Macro on a D70s and find it very useful. For me it is

wide enough, and because it also serves as a 1:2 macro, I have a very versatile lens in one.

Here are samples:

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/samples_24_85.htm

I also recommend the 18-200 for a 'walk around lens' I have this on my (now broken) D200. Its not the sharpest lens out there, but its great lens for doing pretty much all the 'fun' shooting I do.

 

IMO, its the best multipurpose lens going. If I am going to shoot anything serious, I get the primes out anyway.

 

Below is a recent shot (on my broken d200) taken with the 18-200. The only thing I could ask for is the ability to stop it down a bit at the long end.<div></div>

Err... That should read 'open it up at the long end' not stop down... duh!

IMHO the 24-70mm is the best fit for what you currently have. I don't see you being happy with anything else.

I started using the 24-85 for my walk around lens and I'm so pleased with it that I now use it as my primary lens.It gives me the versatility to match my taste. My 12-24mm , 90mm marco ( tamron ) and 70-200 are always near by but most the time the 24-85 is on the camera.

The 16-85 VR is a surprisingly good lens for the DX models.

I am waiting for the Sigma 18-125 OS lens.

"The 16-85 VR is a surprisingly good lens for the DX models."

 

Yup.