Best Nikon Walkabout Lens?

[Turn7]

Have the standard non VR 18/70 and its an ok lens.

Mine sadly has some mould on the front lesn which removed the coatings internally, so Imm considering upgrading as we are off to Venice in a few weeks.

Wiuld prefer to buy used, so any thoughts welcomed.

[MysteryLemon]

I really enjoyed having the 16-85mm as my always on lens. Really useful range, decent optics and really well built.

It's not one of the cheaper dx lenses but worth the £200 price it commands.

[Nigel_O]

What's your budget? What body is it going on?

I'd recommend staying with a Nikkor lens if you can afford the premium they command. 16-35VR is good, but possibly a bit short for a walkabout. 24-70VR II is very well regarded and there's a non-VR version for less money

Sigma 17-50 appears to be well-regarded for the money, but ISTR that its only for crop-sensor bodies (DC for crop, DG for full-frame, I believe)

If you have a crop-sensor body, you could do a lot worse than a 18-55 VR kit lens

[Turn7]

Meant to have said - its going on a D300.

Budget is smallish as this has only just crossed my mind whilst looking at recent pics taken the the 18/70....

[a340driver]

My default has become my 12-24mm f4 on both D60 and D7000 bodies. Most of my pictures are taken whilst hiking and although it's heavy, it is great for scenery and on a DX body still serves as 36mm.

So you just need to get in closer and f4 throughout the range helps with this. I bought mine second hand in the US for around $400, a great lens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Zoom-Nikkor-12-24-I...

[Lucas CAV]

Another 18-70mm -- a really good lens for the money still imho

Otherwise - the 16-85mm

[Turn7]

Lucas CAV said:

Another 18-70mm -- a really good lens for the money still imho

Otherwise - the 16-85mm

I think thats what me head is saying tbh. I also think the later version is VR as well ?

[tonyb1968]

This one? Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens - Nikon Fit
Its a decent price, I actually have one on my D7100, it hardly ever comes off unless I need a bit more reach, plus its fairly cheap at around £320.

[GravelBen]

I bought a cheap second-hand 18-105 when my 18-70 got too full of dust, it does the all-rounder job pretty well - probably does everything better than the 18-70.

Some reviews say the 16-85 is nicer, but they were far more expensive than the 18-105 when I was buying so I haven't tried one myself.

The 18-140 is apparently very good, and the new 16-80 f2.8-4 interests me too.

[Gad-Westy]

Value wise, I really thin the 18-70 is hard to beat. Metal mount, quite fast apertures (for a lit lens). You can do better but not in bangs per buck term in my opinion.

[james_tigerwoods]

Another vote for the 18-70. I've had mine for years and I've yet to find one better for the money for a walkabout lens.

[brman]

mpb have quite a lot of 16-85VRs at the moment for £200. At least they did last time I looked.

[jeevescat]

I've been pleasantly surprised by the Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 I got to take travelling, a lot of lens for not much money at all.

[Turn7]

Im torn....

replace the 18/70 - which I do like - for about a ton....

OR

get the 16/85 for two ton and some.....

Worth the extra or not ?

[steveatesh]

You may want to consider the 18-140 Nikon lens as a walkabout. It's been a fantastic lens all round, including landscape, portraits and general photography. Fast to focus, very sharp and only £205 from HDEW cameras.

[toohuge]

I use the 18-140 and it gives very good results, although a little soft at 140. That said, build quality could be better - mine is showing signs of wear very prematurely which is disappointing.

The only limiting factor of the lens - it is a little slow in low light conditions - but for size and weight it's an ideal walkabout lens imo.

[steveatesh]

toohuge said:

I use the 18-140 and it gives very good results, although a little soft at 140. That said, build quality could be better - mine is showing signs of wear very prematurely which is disappointing.

The only limiting factor of the lens - it is a little slow in low light conditions - but for size and weight it's an ideal walkabout lens imo.

Interesting, do you mind me asking where the wear is showing? Mines a year old now and still pristine but I'll keep an eye out for it!

[Pupp]

If you can find one at the right price, would certainly recommend the 17-55 F2.8 DX - there was a thread on here about the prices having fallen 'though the new crop of high end DX bodies might have changed that. Battleship quality

[Sam All]

Pupp said:

If you can find one at the right price, would certainly recommend the 17-55 F2.8 DX - there was a thread on here about the prices having fallen 'though the new crop of high end DX bodies might have changed that. Battleship quality

Quite heavy though

[toohuge]

steveatesh said:

toohuge said:

I use the 18-140 and it gives very good results, although a little soft at 140. That said, build quality could be better - mine is showing signs of wear very prematurely which is disappointing.

The only limiting factor of the lens - it is a little slow in low light conditions - but for size and weight it's an ideal walkabout lens imo.

Interesting, do you mind me asking where the wear is showing? Mines a year old now and still pristine but I'll keep an eye out for it!

Not at all - There is a small plastic ring in front of the zoom barrel that (appears) to seal the lens. Whether through poor handling or higher temperatures (I live in the South East USA) the glue has deteriorated and the ring comes loose. It's not a huge deal, but it occasionally catches on the lens when zooming and is very irritating. - Plus Nikon class this fault as 'wear and tear' so is not covered under their warranty or extended service agreement.

It's still a cracking lens for the money.
Chris