Walk around lens for Nikon D300

[cguaimare]

<p>When I travel I want to stay light. I love taking pictures of people, situations, buildings, faces. What would be the ideal lens? Zoom or prime? Which one? Thanks a lot.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sounds like maybe the 16-85 VR.<br /><br />What lens(es) are you using now? Are there any focal lengths that you find yourself regularly using, or regularly missing?</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>For Dx I would take my original MF 35 2.0 Nikkor from 1969 . If i had nothing, the new 35 1.8 AFS +50 1.4 would be what I would get.</p>

<p>I have also been known to walk with a D40 + 18/135 zoom. It is full of distortion, but came to me new and almost free with the D40, so I use it. I would not buy one.</p>

<p>Now if I wanted to go light, a RF Leica with 35 2.0, 50 2.8, 90 4.0. The modern versions of these are cutting edge lenses. </p>

[kurt_holter]

<p>I have D300's, and after using a Nikon18-200 AF-S VR zoom for two years for casual shooting, I bought a second 17-55/2.8 AF-S to replace it. I'd had one 17-55/2.8 AF-S for some time before that, but since it is a mission critical lens for my day to day work, I added another one.<br>

I am frankly pretty hooked on the 17-55/2.8 despite the fact that it is physically very bulky and very heavy. However, I have yet to come across any of the Nikon zooms that approach the optical performance of the various f2.8 AF-S models., and I like fast lenses.<br>

I know that a lot of photographers would find the D300 / 17-55/2.8 combo simply to huge for casual shooting, and I understand that.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Primes...<br>

1) Lighter<br /> 2) for the most part less expensive<br /> 3) Make you think more about composition<br /> <br /> Zooms...<br /> <br /> 1) More convenient<br /> <br /> So, its up to you. I like primes and especially dislike variable aperture zooms. Most of the fixed aperture zooms are pretty good though.</p>

[johnny_anderson]

<p>I like the 16-85VR lens, great IQ and light weight. It's always on my camera except for telephoto or macro shots.</p>

[cguaimare]

I use to have a 18-200 but I foun it is too slow for a lot of situations. I seldom use the long end. In low light situations is a big issue.

[douglasely]

<p>I use four for walk around lenses on a D300.<br>

AF 50mm f1.8 Superb lens for under $140.00 US. Light weight.<br>

AF-S 17 - 55mm f2.8 Expensive. This is my most used lens.<br>

AF 85 f1.4 Expensive This is my favorite lens.<br>

AF 180m f2.8<br>

I understand that the 16 - 85mm VR is superb. </p>

<p>Best, D</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If you don't need anything very long then a 16-85 VR or 17-50 f/2.8 would be good choices. If you need something longer than a Nikon 18-200 VR, Tamron 18-270 VC, or Sigma 18-200 OS or 18-250 OS are good choices. My travel light lens is the Nikon 18-200 VR. It is very sharp from 18-100mm and still sharp enough from 135-200 to make very good to excellent 8x10s and a good to very good 11x14s.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Nothing wrong with an 18-55 kit lens optically unless you need the bokeh of a f/2.8 lens. Mine came with my D70s, and I use it on my D200 sometimes. It's not particularly fast, but the better high ISO performance of the D300 makes up those couple of stops. PT lens supports it, and if it gets damaged, you probably won't lose much sleep.</p>

[azlatic]

<p>Another vote for the 17-55 f/2.8. Heavy mother but worth it. It stays on my D300 probably 99% of the time.</p>

[newbie1]

<p>My back pack is my carry around camera bag. For shooting buildings, people, wide angel, close up shots an every day cover all lens I use my 18-200 AF lens.</p>