Walkaround Travel, Low-Light, and Sports

[justine_k]

<p>Oh the agony of choosing one lens to do it all!</p>

<p>A couple financial things have come up, so I'm trying to find ONE lens I can use for 3 things for now: be the perfect travel lens, be the perfect lens for low light, and be the perfect lens for phograhing dog and horses in action. I'm thinking a 2.8 would be great...but now we're in heavy and expensive territory. I'd like my budge to stay 500+/- a reasonable amount. </p>

<p>I've looked so far at a<br>

-16-85mm and I worry about low light capabilities in museum, dark alleys, sports, etc. Plus I already have a 12-24, so I don't necearrily need that overlap for the few times I want something under 24.<br>

- Tamrom 28-75 2.8. I worry that it's going to stink at focusing quickly at fast subjects. <br>

- Nikkor 18-200. Great all around lens, but I tried the one we have at work and wasn't completely entralled. Also bad in low light<br>

Any other 2.8 recommendations?</p>

<p>I also worry about the range on the long end. I feel like I might greatly missing being able to stalk someone from far away, or having to get too close to something. But I don't think there is a reasonable 2.8 or similar lens that has a little more each (up to 120). </p>

<p>Eventually I'll be adding a 80-200mm 2.8 to the mix, but that won't be for awhile.<br>

Decisions decisons!</p>

[bms]

<p>Sure, the Nikkor 16-300 f2.8 VR II....... :)<br /> Joke aside...</p>

<p>I don't think a single lens will fit you...... a 2.8 on a budget? The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 comes to mind, used to have that lens (older version) and liked it. A used Nikkor 35-70, but it's a little slow to focus.<br /> Not speaking from experience, but you could consider a 35 f1.8... good for low light, it is AF-S and should focus pretty fast but traveling you need to zoom with your feet....</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The Nikkor 16-300 f/2.8 VR II is a good choice, but I think it costs more than $500.</p>

<p>A Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 would be good for travel and low light, but it may be too short for shooting dogs and horses in action. I can't think of any lens that would be good for all three, yet alone one that costs $500.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>It sounds like you think / hope that a single lens which meets all your criteria exists, ie, light weight, long FL, short FL, fast f-number, high optical quality, cheap. I assure you, we would all love to have such a lens. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist. Even if you take out "cheap", it doesn't exist.</p>

<p>You are going to have to make some compromises, and only you can say which of these qualities is your top priority, which is 2nd, etc. Without explicitly stating this, any answer that you receive to your question will undoubtedly be biased by the personal priorities and existing lens kit of the person offering the suggestion.</p>

<p>For example, my kit is reasonably well stocked with everything from old primes to one of the newest Nikon hi performance FX wide zooms, the 16-35/f4 VR, with several more lenses in the DX format, but most in FX. If I am on a vacation not specifically for the purpose of photography, I probably would bring only my DX body, 18-200 VR, Sigma 30/1.4 and a tiny tripod. At night, using the tripod, I can drop my ISO to 200, stop the 18-200 down to f/8 or f/11 and take great shots of anything stationary, over essentially the entire range of the zoom (because I stopped down to the sweet spot of the lens). If I need to go hand-held or the subject is moving in low light and reasonably close, I obviously switch to the 30/1.4 and zoom with my feet. OTOH, if I happen upon a pick up soccer game at sundown, I don't feel frustrated knowing that my 80-200/2.8 and longer lenses are at home, and I probably wouldn't try to "see what I can get" using the wrong equipment, because I have enough blurry soccer shots to last a lifetime, and I don't need to add to the collection. ;-) . Basically, I made my bed and I'm happy to sleep in it.</p>

<p>Anyway, everyone wants to have all bases covered at all times, but we can't. Figure out which shooting scenarios you're willing to give up and we can start making reasonable suggestions.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>justine, i'm afraid many will agree that there is no one lens for all your demands. you need at least two :-)</p>

[stank]

<p>For most of what you want, Sigma’s 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM should fit the bill. I bought one for a trip to China and it was the only lens I needed. It focuses fast. The combo of relatively large aperture and image stabilization makes it really flexible for low light. The down side is it may not have the tele reach that you want.<br>

Stan</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p> "be the perfect travel lens, be the perfect lens for low light, and be the perfect lens for phograhing dog and horses in action."<br>

You will have a better chance of bringing peace to the Middle East than finding <em><strong>one</strong></em> lens that does what you need for $500. <br>

:)</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Justine,<br />I agree with all other respondednts, there is currently no such thing available.<br />There is maybe a lens that satisfies part of all requested thoug : Sigma 50-150 f2.8 , its a bit of everything you ask for i think.</p>

<p><br /> There does exist also a very very expensive lens-cam combo that fits 90% of your needs too , it was called "Hubble" :-) ;-) ... , its a perfect solution for speciffficaly ==> "I feel like I might greatly missing being able to stalk someone from far away, or having to get too close to something</p>

[justine_k]

<p>Thanks for all the responses, everyone! I very much appreciate them! I knew I would be getting some "smart" remarks about how the lens doesn't exist, it costs a fortune, etc. But at the moment it's all about finding a possibility I haven't thought of, and I got a couple good suggestions. Obviously I'm going to have to give up some aspect that I want, but I also think I can get something that meets a lot of the goals. </p>

<p>I somehow missed in my searches Sigma's 17-70mm as well as the Sigma 50-150 2.8. Obviously both will be lacking somewhere (17-70....not wide enough on the 50-150). But they give me additional ideas to explore. I'm really amazed at the prices of some of these decent 2.8 zooms the 3rd parties are putting out. I know they don't hold a cake to the Nikkor 24-70, but it seems like they have done a decent job of coming up with a good "semi-solution" for those on a bedget. </p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma 50-150 : I know they don't hold a cake to the Nikkor 24-70 ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Justine, just check this one out on <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> and search this forum a bit more for this lens.. You might be surprised in how well it performs. Obviously you cannot compare it directly to the Nikor 24-70 because its about completely different focal lengths ......</p>

 

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>The Hubble didn't come with an F mount, otherwise, it would have been in my bag.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Arthur, sounds like you're carrying a XXL Bag....</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have a D700 with primes and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and Nikkor 75-150mm manual focus. I use the 28mm focal length a lot so I just purchased a Sigma DP-1s for a travel/hiking camera. For light weight and speed a fast 28mm works for me. For dogs and horses I suspect a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom will be the winner. IMHO you will be better off picking which type of photography is most important to you and get the best lense for that app. Then you will be happy in at least one endeavor. Save up to get the next lense. The Tamron 28-75mm might work very well with your 12-24mm. I went to my local camera store to check one out and pick a good one with a quick return if I was not happy in the field with it. Stores like BandH will take care of you if you happen to get a lemon of what ever brand.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Your best bet may be a Sigma 18-200 OS ($369 at Adorama) and either a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8. You can get the Sigma and either Nikon for about $500. The Sigma is actually a little sharper than the Nikon 18-200 VR according to Pop Photo's test.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>justine, i have the 28-75. yes, it can hunt sometimes in extreme low-light--just like every other lens in my bag. other than that, AF performance is generally snappy (i have the older, screw-drive version) and IQ is pretty crisp. one huge reason to get that over a 17-70, 16-85 or 18-200 is that your viewfinder will be at 2.8 throughout the focal range. with a 16-85, for instance, at the same 75mm range, the tamron's VF would let in 3 stops more light than the nikon. performance-wise, i have very few complaints with it after 4 years. its main drawback is it's not too wide on DX, but if you have a 12-24, then that's really not a big problem. i actually use that combo frequently and it works out great for events, especially with two bodies.</p>

<p>no, it's not a $1700 nano-crystal coated lens, but it's not chopped liver, either. actually it's a big winner in the bang for the buck category.</p>

<p>i also have the 50-150. that's not a direct competitor to the 24-70, it's actually a competitor to...hmm...wait a minute... nikon doesnt seem to have anything in that exact focal length with a constant 2.8 aperture. a-ha! anyway, that's also a very good bang for the buck lens: versatile, compact, great IQ, fast-focusing, blah blah blah. no VR but if you're not shooting landscapes, so what? i use it for portraits, action, sports, etc., etc. it's a little over your budget, but also works well with a 12-24 in my experience.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Hi. As a walk around zoom, the 16-85mm is about as good as it gets in a consumer zoom. For low light, the Nikon 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8 or 85mm f1.8 would fit the bill. I have the first lens & plan to get the 35mm. Take a look at <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera</a> and take a look at the resolution data. The Sigma looks a bit iffy at some focal lengths.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 and I love it , but it's $750. The 16-85 VR is also a very good lens, but it's $630. The Nikon 18-105 VR is $360. It's about as good optically. The 16-85 VR is better mechanically, but the 18-105 VR should stand up to most amateur use.</p>

<p>I still go with the Sigma 18-200 OS. Superzooms are very sharp until you get near their long end. Even then they can make a very good to excellent 8x10. With a shorter lens you'll have to blow up an image to get what the Sigma gets at 200mm, and blowing it up will cost you IQ.</p>

<p>If you're sure that you won't need the reach of a superzoom, go with one of the shorter ratio zooms. Otherwise, it's better to have it even if it turns out you don't use it.</p>

[stank]

<p>The Hubble is in my bag. </p>

<p>I get to work on it every day supporting operations.</p>

<p>As far as the Sigma 17-70mm (newer version) I do notice that it has some barrel distortion at 17mm but it is well controlled and not displeasing. It isn't quite as sharp as my Nikon 28-105 or 70-210 but it is very acceptable. Neither of these lenses can touch it when it comes to hand holding with a slow shutter. I find it fun to use in low light.<br>

Stan</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Justine : Did you decide on something to fill the bill yet ?</p>

<p>Stan, if you still read this : I think you're a lucky b* ..:-)</p>

 

[justine_k]

<p>CPM,</p>

<p>No! I haven't decided. When it comes to camera equipment, I tend to be indecisive to the point of it being an annoying neuroses. I need to "borrow" the 18-200mm from work again and restrict it to some of the zoom ranges I'm considering, I think, to decide if I'd really be happy with some of the ranges I'm considering.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I had to return the new D300 due to some issues, so I'm still waiting for the replacement to come back. </p>