All-round lens for DSLR

[Miha]

This summer I will probably be going on a trip where size and weight of the camera do matter. Therefore, my 2.8 trio will have to stay at home.

Now I'm considering a single all-round lens to accompany either my D750 or D7200. I already have a 20+ years old Sigma 28-200 for FF, but I know it is not very sharp and it is also lacking stabilisation and AF motor. I can't find a suitable modern lens for Nikon F-mount full frame camera (no surprise). Other option I'm considering is the 18-300 3.5-6.3 lens for the DX camera. It has VR, is AF-S and allows manual correction of the focusing. Unfortunately there is no option for me to rent/borrow this lens and to test it. I would like to know if anyone of you has an opinion about this lens. Would the optical quality be much(?) better than the old Sigma lens? I don't expect superb IQ from a 'superzoom' lens. Just want to record some impressions of the trip. I am also aware of the effect of VR system in the newer lens. I do know about the size of certain compact cameras and have some experiences with them, but I noticed they are much worse regarding the high ISO-s than the DSLRs.

Perhaps you can come out with another solution. Tamron 18-400mm maybe?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Regards, Miha.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Miha

[Sanford]

I used the 18-200mm Nikkor zoom on my D300 for years and there wasn't much need for anything else. I now have gotten used to the 50mm Nikkor as my only lens for the Nikon, mainly as a weight saving measure.

[CvhKaar]

Or.. alternatively ... something "All in one" Nikon P950 or P1000 compact camera  instead of a lens ?

( 24-3000mm  zoom, digital zoon up to 6000 mm for the P1000..)

At around the same price as a 24-120 zoom lens...

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by CvhKaar

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, Miha said:

going on a trip

Are you after wide landscapes AND far off and/or small nature?

[Miha]

Hi, everyone. Thanks for your tips.

I am not interested in a bridge/compact camera. Also the 24-120 is too expensive. Unfortunately the 18-200 is not sold any more.

@ Mike: The trip will include everything, from cityscapes to landscapes. The limiting factor is the volume and weight of the entire luggage. So this lens will be used for this trip and maybe some following trips/hikes, it will not replace the lenses I already have.

[ShunCheung]

I certainly have not used every super zoom, but the only one I am happy with is the Z-mount 24-200, which does no good when your body is a DSLR. I have the F-mount 28-300 AF-S VR, but it is kind of soft on the 300mm end.

Nikon has two versions of the 18-300 DX super zoom, introduced in pretty quick succession. The earlier one is f5.6 on the 300mm end, but it is a bigger lens with 77mm front filter thread. I understand that lens has been discontinued a few years ago. The second version if f6.3 on the 300mm end, resulting in a smaller, 67mm filter thread. And there are many third-party options.

[Dieter Schaefer]

For DX, I quite liked the 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 VR lens though I exchanged it for the 16-80 f/2.8-4. For FX, I quite like the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC even though I am missing out on the wide-angle range (I tend to at least carry the 20/1.8) along with the Tamron; or the 15-30/2.8 VC if I have the space in the bag).

[SCL]

Miha - I don't know you budget, but I do see on Ebay several used Nikon 24-120mm lenses in the $70-80 range. I used that lens on several European trips in the early 2000s on a D100 and got good results, even better later on a D300 in South America. Although I no longer own it, I found it to be a good all-around lens. Whatever you deide, I'd make sure you check used versions on Ebay and other high volume dealers in used gear. There are some really good buys out there.

[mike_halliwell]

2 minutes ago, SCL said:

Nikon 24-120mm

 

2 minutes ago, SCL said:

on a D100

Having nothing wider than 36mm EQ is a non-starter.... for me at least.

[Miha]

Hi, 24-120 is too wide on the DX and too short on the FF. So far I'm searching for a used 28-300 G ED VR, whish should be a reasonably good performer.

[mike_halliwell]

3 hours ago, Miha said:

cityscapes to landscapes

...and you think 24mm on DX is too wide?

A captured FOV of a 36mm lens (EQ) is too NARROW for cityscapes and landscapes in my book.

Guess you have a different book...!

[ShunCheung]

1 hour ago, SCL said:

Miha - I don't know you budget, but I do see on Ebay several used Nikon 24-120mm lenses in the $70-80 range.

Be careful that there are three different versions of the 24-120 5x zoom in the F mount, plus a recent Z-mount version of the 24-120/4 S. The first two F-mount versions are f5.6 @ 120mm, the first AF-D and the second AF-S VR. Those two versions seem to be mediocre. The third F-mount version is a constant 24-120mm/f4 AF-S with VR. Initially I was happy with that in 2010 when I used it with the 12MP D700 but later on I found it less than stellar on the D850.

The Z-mount version is really good, but it is useless on a DSLR. 

[glen_h]

I have the Nikon AF 24-120, not the newest one, but the earlier one.

It was a lot less than $100, from Goodwill.

 

My D200 has the Tamron 18-270 with image stabilization, though a little heavier than the 24-120.

[joseph_smith3]

I do not have a single lens recommendation. For FX, I take a Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G and a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 G lens (no longer made, will have to buy used.) This is my standard travel kit. Both are fairly light in weight and have small profiles. 

[Gary Naka]

My two-lens DX travel kit:

• I use the 18-140 as my GP lens.
• I partner it with a 35/1.8 for indoor low light use.

Caution:  As you go longer than 140, you have to consider how big and heavy that lens is.  Will it get in your way, as a lens that you carry all day?

re:  Tamron 18-400.  My only concern is how stiff the zoom ring might be.  The lens has to push a LOT of lens in/out with about a 100 degree turn of the zoom ring.  I could not find/determine how much you turn the zoom ring.  That requires a STEEP zoom cam.  I would like to feel the zoom ring myself, before making a decision.
This comes from a bad experience using a Sigma 17-50/2.8.  The zoom ring had a 60 degree throw, and because of that, it was STIFF to turn.  Because of that, I did not like that lens.

[Miha]

Hi.

@Mike: To clear the misunderstanding (because of my writing) - i wanted to say that 24 mm is too long on DX and 120 mm is to short on FF.

I defintely want to get the newer lens, therefore I searched for 18-300 6.3 or tamron 18-400 for DX. I will also look for 28-300 for FF. Some of these lenses are selling not much used for a reasonable amount of money (~300€). I will also look for 18-140.

I'm not very keen to use multiple lenses and change the lenses on the trip/hike.

Regards, Miha.

[mike_halliwell]

4 hours ago, Miha said:

@Mike: To clear the misunderstanding (because of my writing) - i wanted to say that 24 mm is too long on DX and 120 mm is to short on FF.

👍

[Matthew Currie]

My wife has the 18-140 on her D7200 and quite likes it.  I like a little wider wide end and have the 16-80 on a D7100.  Both make a nice all-round lens if you don't need to go too long. Both are about the sharpest zooms around, so with the generous density of the D7200 you can crop quite a bit.  The choice comes down mostly to whether you want the wide end or the long end.  We both usually take a longer lens too so it's less of an issue, but on our last trip to Egypt and Jordan we skipped the long lenses.  We both did fine without.  The 18-140 is a good bit cheaper used. I had a 16-85 earlier, and it was not bad, but it was not notably sharp, and either of the ones above will do better, I think.

[luis triguez]

Nikkor AF-S 16-85 DX

[jose_angel]

To be honest, I have to admit that my most used zoom lens for my "single lens pro trips" is the 24-120/4 VR (5x). It's certainly heavy and somewhat cumbersome, but it's still a bit more comfortable than the holy trinity or a bunch of primes. The quality at 120mm isn't impressive, but it gets the job done. It's not my favorite lens but I find it really practical.

I still keep a 28-105 screw-on lens as a second option, which is much more compact and lighter, but I always take the 24-120. Same thing with a 24-85AFS, which I rarely use. I also have some other nice Nikon zooms that I don't use for various reasons.

Some thoughts: I think the higher the zoom ratio, the worse the image quality will be at some extreme (... how could perform an 8-10x -or higher- lens???). I assume (I don't have any of them) that the latest lens arrivals are specially designed for higher resolution cameras, so better results should be achieved. I never found a really practical zoom lens for both DX and FX, so I used to have dedicated lenses for each format (I stopped using DX long ago).

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by jose_angel

[Dieter Schaefer]

9 hours ago, Matthew Currie said:

I had a 16-85 earlier, and it was not bad, but it was not notably sharp

Owned that lens too - was doing fine on 12MP DX cameras - anything more and the lens showed its weaknesses.

2 hours ago, jose_angel said:

24-85AFS

Owned each one of the AF-S lenses - they aren't optical gems to put it mildly. Allegedly, the older AF-D 24-85/2.8-4 is better optically (I never used one).

[ross_lipman]

I use a 7100 and generally the 18-140 zoom.   The lens is versatile and works for about 85% of my needs.  However there are limitations.  It is soft on the long end.  It has noticeable distortion, and both vignetteing and chromatic aberration through its range.   You can easily correct for all in pp.  I use LR3.5 (old and I OWN it(.  I set a macro for lens correction that I apply to all pictures after importing, and before I add additional edits.

Middle of the lens is sharp, and the 7100 offers 24mp which is more than enough to allow for cropping without image degradation.

I have an old 70-300mm for tele needs.  It is a great lens out to about 225-250mm, then gets noticeably soft as it approaches 300mm.  Also infinity focus seems to be hair off at the long end.  I generally use this lens for fixed location pictures, and generally have an opportunity to manually adjust focus at the long end.   

 

 

[Mary Doo]

May I make a bold suggestion:  take this opportunity to jump on the Nikon Z mirrorless train now.  I briefly checked eBay just now :  Sell your D750 and D7200 - the proceeds would be enough to buy a used good-to-excellent Nikon Z6 - maybe the proceeds can even buy the II version.  Then get the 24-200 Z lens.  

I love and always use a good zoom lens for walk-around.  Based on my experience with both Nikon and Olympus M43, I find the 24-200 range practical and reliable.  As for Olympus, time again I fall back to the 12-100mm lens (equivalent to 24-200mm in full frame) even though my other Olympus pro lenses are also very sharp. 

[Rick Helmke]

I was in this situation a few years ago. I took an F4s just for fun but by far my most used rig was a D300s and a Tamron 28-75/2.8 with an old 80-200 in case I needed some reach. The Tamron and body of your choice will do probably 90% of everything you want.

Rick H.

[Matthew Currie]

On 4/5/2023 at 1:48 PM, ross_lipman said:

I use a 7100 and generally the 18-140 zoom.   The lens is versatile and works for about 85% of my needs.  However there are limitations.  It is soft on the long end.  It has noticeable distortion, and both vignetteing and chromatic aberration through its range.   You can easily correct for all in pp.  I use LR3.5 (old and I OWN it(.  I set a macro for lens correction that I apply to all pictures after importing, and before I add additional edits.

Middle of the lens is sharp, and the 7100 offers 24mp which is more than enough to allow for cropping without image degradation.

I have an old 70-300mm for tele needs.  It is a great lens out to about 225-250mm, then gets noticeably soft as it approaches 300mm.  Also infinity focus seems to be hair off at the long end.  I generally use this lens for fixed location pictures, and generally have an opportunity to manually adjust focus at the long end.   

 

 

My D7100 was initially bought by my wife, with the 18-140 lens, which she still uses on her D7200.  Maybe there's sample variation, but I never noticed much issue with it except for the linear distortion.  It's a nice carrying-around zoom if you don't mind the limited width at the short end.

There are so many variations of the 70-300 it's hard to evaluate.  The original D (which I still have from film days) is pretty soft at length, but not so awful.  It was a great bargain for its performance back in the day.   I never tried the next one, the "G" that is poorly thought of.  My wife had the AFS/VR one, which was pretty nice and at least useable even at 300.  We both now have the FX version of the latest AFD one, and that's an improvement over all of them, reasonably sharp throughout, and fast focusing.  If you like that range, I think it's a real winner at the price.