Which walkabout lens for Nikon D5100?
Discussion
It's time I upgraded my kit lens to something I can leave on more permanently. I currently have the kit 18-55 lens and a 55-200 Nikon lens too. Both consumer quality, I'm just an enthusiast.
My thinking is to buy a lens like the Nikon 18-140 mm walkabout which seems to be available for just over £200 from here http://civictelecomonline.com/products/nikon-af-s-... (I have never heard of these, a link from Amazon, I presume a grey import).
However, I've also come across several alternatives from Sigma and Tamron
For example http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Len...
And the Tamron http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-As...
The Tamron seems remarkably cheap and I guess there is an element of get what you pay for here?
I do general photography. I like landscapes and seascapes, like long exposure shots, nature. I'd love to do more portraits but sadly have no willing subjects
so a prime would be wasted at this point I believe. I want to be able to spend a day without having to change the lens over so much, or miss shots because I haven't changed it!
I'm looking for a lens that gives "better" results than the kit, so sharpness in particular, hopefully across the zoom range, and with not to much distortion. I understand the Nikon has excellent sharpness at some zoom setting but not others. It seems to get good reviews on Amazon, but mixed reviews on photography sites?
I know nothing about Sigma or Tamron but am attracted by their price. Are the Sigma and Tamron serious contenders or should I stick with Nikon lens? Or alternatives? I have not got a huge budget to spend on photography, all opinions welcome.
My thinking is to buy a lens like the Nikon 18-140 mm walkabout which seems to be available for just over £200 from here http://civictelecomonline.com/products/nikon-af-s-... (I have never heard of these, a link from Amazon, I presume a grey import).
However, I've also come across several alternatives from Sigma and Tamron
For example http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Len...
And the Tamron http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-As...
The Tamron seems remarkably cheap and I guess there is an element of get what you pay for here?
I do general photography. I like landscapes and seascapes, like long exposure shots, nature. I'd love to do more portraits but sadly have no willing subjects
so a prime would be wasted at this point I believe. I want to be able to spend a day without having to change the lens over so much, or miss shots because I haven't changed it! I'm looking for a lens that gives "better" results than the kit, so sharpness in particular, hopefully across the zoom range, and with not to much distortion. I understand the Nikon has excellent sharpness at some zoom setting but not others. It seems to get good reviews on Amazon, but mixed reviews on photography sites?
I know nothing about Sigma or Tamron but am attracted by their price. Are the Sigma and Tamron serious contenders or should I stick with Nikon lens? Or alternatives? I have not got a huge budget to spend on photography, all opinions welcome.
Edited by steveatesh on Monday 23 February 07:23
Edited by steveatesh on Monday 23 February 07:49
If you want to get improved quality at a reasonable price, I'd flog or trade in the 18-55mm for a secondhand 16-85mm Nikkor.
That's a bit more, but I think then you'd start to notice an improvement. Other than that, anything faster is probably well over your budget, apart from some top quality primes, that you say you don't want.
The question is, that 85mm at the long end, is that enough?
Otherwise something like an 18-200, but only you will know if that's a step up, or just sideways, in the quality you're hoping for....
That's a bit more, but I think then you'd start to notice an improvement. Other than that, anything faster is probably well over your budget, apart from some top quality primes, that you say you don't want.
The question is, that 85mm at the long end, is that enough?
Otherwise something like an 18-200, but only you will know if that's a step up, or just sideways, in the quality you're hoping for....
K12beano said:
If you want to get improved quality at a reasonable price, I'd flog or trade in the 18-55mm for a secondhand 16-85mm Nikkor.
That's a bit more, but I think then you'd start to notice an improvement. Other than that, anything faster is probably well over your budget, apart from some top quality primes, that you say you don't want.
The question is, that 85mm at the long end, is that enough?
Otherwise something like an 18-200, but only you will know if that's a step up, or just sideways, in the quality you're hoping for....
Thanks, are you aware of anything that puts you off the 18-140 Nikon lens? The extra reach to 200 isn't imperative for my needs, nice to have but not imperative. I have not considered the 16-85 and will have a look.That's a bit more, but I think then you'd start to notice an improvement. Other than that, anything faster is probably well over your budget, apart from some top quality primes, that you say you don't want.
The question is, that 85mm at the long end, is that enough?
Otherwise something like an 18-200, but only you will know if that's a step up, or just sideways, in the quality you're hoping for....
The only one I was ever happy with was the 28-300
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm...
steveatesh said:
K12beano said:
If you want to get improved quality at a reasonable price, I'd flog or trade in the 18-55mm for a secondhand 16-85mm Nikkor.
That's a bit more, but I think then you'd start to notice an improvement. Other than that, anything faster is probably well over your budget, apart from some top quality primes, that you say you don't want.
The question is, that 85mm at the long end, is that enough?
Otherwise something like an 18-200, but only you will know if that's a step up, or just sideways, in the quality you're hoping for....
Thanks, are you aware of anything that puts you off the 18-140 Nikon lens? The extra reach to 200 isn't imperative for my needs, nice to have but not imperative. I have not considered the 16-85 and will have a look.That's a bit more, but I think then you'd start to notice an improvement. Other than that, anything faster is probably well over your budget, apart from some top quality primes, that you say you don't want.
The question is, that 85mm at the long end, is that enough?
Otherwise something like an 18-200, but only you will know if that's a step up, or just sideways, in the quality you're hoping for....
I went from an 18-55 to a 16-85.
I then sold on the 16-85 for a tamron 17-50, and this is now my walkabout lens on my d7000. I was never blown away by the 16-85 whereas the tamron is so good and cheaper second hand, I eventually sold my 35mm too due to lack of use
It's a bit soft at 2.8 but sharpens up wonderfully as you stop down.
I then sold on the 16-85 for a tamron 17-50, and this is now my walkabout lens on my d7000. I was never blown away by the 16-85 whereas the tamron is so good and cheaper second hand, I eventually sold my 35mm too due to lack of use
It's a bit soft at 2.8 but sharpens up wonderfully as you stop down.
steveatesh said:
Having poured through reviews today too, I'm leaning towards the Nikon lens, either the 18-140 or the 16-85.
Decisions decisions!
There's only about £30 difference between them.Decisions decisions!
Putting ultimate image quality aside, it might depend on your style
of photography (as well as the obvious usefulness to you of the zoom range);
some people prefer the perspective characteristics of a long lens to a wide, and vice-versa.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff