all round lens for D500

[david_simon]

<p>I have an original version 18-200mm Nikon but find it too soft . What do people suggest as an all round zoom lens good for general shots and travel that will make best use of the my D500 ? I am open to full frame lenses and not just DX.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I like the 16-80mm E DX kit lens a lot: http://www.photo.net/equipment/Nikon-D500-and-16-80mm-DX-Lens-Review</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I bought my D500 early on since I had an African safari trip scheduled for late June, 2016. Back then, there was no kit discount, and IMO at over $1000, the kit lens is way overpriced. However, I think it is a great deal when you only pay $600 or so over the body only price.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Generally speaking, you sacrifice sharpness,

geometrical distortion and aperture for zoom

range. The 17-55mm zoom Nikkor is very sharp

and offers a constant f/2.8 maximum aperture. Its

downside is that it's comparatively big, heavy and

expensive with no VR. Yet it remains Nikon's only option if you want a pro-quality mid-range zoom.

 

I got the 18-140mm VR Nikkor with my D7200, and

find it has totally acceptable IQ for a "walk around"

lens. Not quite up to the standard of the 17-55, but pretty darned close, and without the bulk or cost. Most times the 17-55 gets left behind in favour of the 18-140. Convenience often wins out over sheer image quality I'm afraid.

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I've been very happy with the original Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 on several DX cameras, including the 24MP D7100. It's close in sharpness to Nikon's 17-55mm, much lighter, and a little more resistant to flare when shooting towards a light source.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>+1 for the Tamron</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>As far as Nikon goes I think there is only one lens the 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I think the question you should be asking yourself is what kind of shooting do you do the most of. If you have Lightroom (and I'm sure other software) you can determine which focal length is used with what frequency. That is where you should start looking for a sense. Cameras and lenses are there to serve your creative requirements -- not the other way around.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I owned (and liked) the 17-55 which I had purchased as my "all around" mid-range zoom. At the time my understanding of "all around" might have been flawed or it changed with time - I no longer consider its rather limited range as "all around" but a specialty lens for (indoor) event photography. I replaced it with the 16-85 as my walkaround (never used it on a D500 though), and now have the 18-140 on a D7100 as an "all purpose" (which of course, it isn't; it's just doing well as a general walkaround lens when I am not carrying much or anything else).<br>

<br />The 16-80 Shun mentions comes closest to my understanding of an "all around" mid-range zoom nowadays; with the same caveat Shun points out: it's way overpriced.</p>

[Two23]

<p>There's also the older Nikon 16-85mm VR. Much smaller and more compact. It's decent.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I have to agree with Rodeo Joe and I usually don't!! I have and use both the 17-55/2.8 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. Both are excellent but the 17-55 is just superb for my use. Yeah it's a little big and is heavier than a lot of lenses in that range but the quality just jumps out at me. I grew up with a big heavy motor driven F2 body and all the heavy glass that came with it so that is my preference even now. Somehow the newer lighter equipment often doesn't fit me. The 17-55 is for me one of the most versatile lenses out there. If I had to pick just one lens, and fortunately I don't, that would be it. I just wish it were not limited to Dx format. <br>

Rick H.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sanity check: David, I trust this is because you sometimes want a walk-around lens and this is complementing lenses that you have for when you're doing something specific? (Nothing wrong with that - it's the primary use of the 24-120 f/4 and it's how I used to use my 28-200 on my D700.) I just want to check you've not got a very high-end DX body and are planning to use it entirely as a compact camera with just one lens: the zooms suggested are decent (certainly more so than an 18-200), but you're not going to match the quality that a shorter-range zoom with less flexibility (like the Sigma f/1.8 pair) or decent prime will achieve. A dSLR is a poor substitute for a compact camera if you're not changing lenses, and cameras like the latest RX100 variant will beat the frame rate of a D500 and keep the AF reasonably honest while being a lot more portable (if not handling so well).<br />

<br />

Apologies if this is obvious and irrelevant - I'm just wanting to ensure we give you proper advice.</p>

[david_simon]

<p>Andrew, I received my first SLR when I was 13. I am now 62. So I am definitely not a compact camera with just one lens person. I graduated to the D500 from a D300. I primarily take bird photos with my 200 to 400 mm Nikon as well as macro photos with my 55 mm Nikon macro lens. I don't do enough other photography to justify prime lenses nor do I want on, a vacation, the hassle of having to swap out lenses on an ongoing basis. My next trip will probably be India on a nature photography tour in vehicles, on elephants and on the ground.<br>

The 18 to 200 MM was great for my first DSLR, the D70s. But it no longer meets the grade for a D500 and was barely passable for the D 300. Hence the desire to upgrade to a much sharper lens. I think that I will do is test out the various suggestions and compare them to the 18 to 200 and see which one works best for me.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Good to know, David! Sorry, just checking since I couldn't tell from the question, and we do occasionally get people who want to drop a lot of money on a camera and then attach nothing but a superzoom.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I'd hope the 18-140 or the 16-80 suit you. If the gap to the start of your 200-400 troubles you, I suspect the 70-200 f/4 is your best supplemental lens, although the 55-200 will probably outperform the 18-200 in the overlap if you're not too fussy and want to save money/weight. Have fun in India!<br />

<br />

Incidentally, if you're thinking to take your 200-400 to India... the 200-500 f/5.6 is extremely good and holds up well on the D500. It may not quite match the bigger zoom (and you obviously lose a stop of aperture), but if you're on a weight allowance, I just thought I'd mention it.</p>