Nikon "walkaround" lenses

[Quaint]

I am in the market for a zoom lens in the short-to-medium range to replace the elderly (and rubbishy) Sigma 18-50 currently fulfilling that role in my camera bag. I already have a 50mm f/1.8 and 70-300, and am looking for something which I can use when I need more versatility in terms of shorter focal length.

I am looking for something in the not-too-spendy (i.e. sub-£250) second hand market, so the current candidates are the Nikon 18-105 VR (as seen as a D90 kit lens), the older Nikon 18-70, or a dark horse, the Sigma 17-70. I have considered the Nikon 16-85 but this is rather more expensive, and I'm not convinced it's worth the premium. Happy to have my mind changed though.

So - thoughts? Should I just give up and go home?

[Simpo Two]

The 18-70mm AF-S was my general purpose lens until it started getting serious, and I was very pleased with it.

[Quaint]

You see, this is interesting; it's also the cheapest of the options I'm considering...

[itsnotarace]

Another vote for the 18-70, or 16-85 if budget allows

[Don]

An alternative, if pricey one I admit, is Nikon's 18-200 super-zoom.

Very, very versatile. It's a compromise, of course, as you would always be better off in terms of image quality with a prime lens of the right type BUT it seriously cuts down on the contents of the kit-bag...great for travelling light.

[AndWhyNot]

which Nikon body is it for- you mention D90?

Some of the earlier Nikons require a lens with its own motor if you want to use auto focus. Nikon brand these AF-S, or HSM on Sigma

[_dobbo_]

Must admit I never got on with my 18-70, I reckon I had a bad'un!

Edited by _dobbo_ on Monday 26th April 17:17

[Simpo Two]

AndWhyNot said:

Some of the earlier Nikons require a lens with its own motor if you want to use auto focus.

I believe that's only D40 and D60 models.

[AndWhyNot]

Simpo Two said:

AndWhyNot said:

Some of the earlier Nikons require a lens with its own motor if you want to use auto focus.

I believe that's only D40 and D60 models.

I try to avoid too many capitals and numbers when I'm posting from the iPhone

[Quaint]

AndWhyNot said:

which Nikon body is it for- you mention D90?
Some of the earlier Nikons require a lens with its own motor if you want to use auto focus. Nikon brand these AF-S, or HSM on Sigma

Sorry - it's a D70 so has its own onboard motor for AF.

I've read lots of complimentary things about the Nikon 18-70; since I tend to put the 70-300 on for long-distance work I feel it complements my existing kit rather well (where an 18-200, though sexy, would be redundant for the 70-200 portion of its reach).

Thanks for the comments so far.

[andy-xr]

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is worth a look

[Furyous]

I still like my "kit" 18-70, its a good range for walkabout and is ED glass.

[forty-two]

I was also going to give the 18-200 a mention but as you say you are covered from 70-300 so having something shorter could benefit.

If you want a walk about lens though with where you only have the camera you will be hard pressed to beat it!

It is well known that it is a bit soft and won't give you amazing crystal clarity but that is a small price to pay for a lens that simply works in so many situations.

Can you tell I have one and I like it

[Simpo Two]

Quaint said:

Sorry - it's a D70 so has its own onboard motor for AF.

Most of my NZ photos were taken with a D70 and 18-70mm lens (which was supplied with it) - it was the combo I did much of my digital learning on. The D70 has been superseded of course but it still works as well today as it did when it was highly desirable in 2004

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 26th April 21:53

[Olivero]

I would recommend a 17-55mm f2.8 lens. Second-hand but much better than any of the ones listed here. It is a DX lens and not tiny but gives good results.

[GravelBen]

Most of my landscapes etc and quite a lot of my rally photos are taken with the 18-70 (on a D80), not much bad to say about it really. Obviously aperture can be a bit limiting in low light but you'll get that with any low-priced lens.

I'm thinking about upgrading it at some stage (its slowly but steadily filling with dust from rallies), most likely to an 18-105 but also considering 16-85 and 18-135. 16-85 is much much pricier than the rest though as has been said.

[Simpo Two]

Olivero said:

I would recommend a 17-55mm f2.8 lens. Second-hand but much better than any of the ones listed here. It is a DX lens and not tiny but gives good results.

In fact that's my general purpose wedding lens. But at over £1,000 new they're going to sail over the OPs budget of £250 even s/h. Also not sure he needs the speed or wants the bulk. But it is a very good lens.

[Quaint]

Simpo Two is correct - much as I'd love a bag full of ultra-fast glass, I have neither the budget nor the inclination to spend that much. That 17-55 looks lovely, though.

Thanks again for all the advice. I think, based on what people here have said and the generally glowing reviews online, that I'll look at the 18-70. It seems like a lot of bang for the buck in terms of image quality and if I need low-light performance, I have a tripod.

[grumpy bear]

I replaced a 18-70 with the 16-85 and I felt it was worth the extra. I have sinced replaced the 16-85 with a 28-70 f2.8 and a 17-35 f2.8 but I sold my weekend car to fund these and my other lenses but that's another story.

I used the 16-85 on holiday in Rhodes last year and the results still stand scrutiny. My 18-70 was reasonably sharp but the zoom always felt a little loose and sloppy.

[Quaint]

Interesting, grumpy - thanks for the insight.

Part of the problem I currently have is that the Sigma 18-50 is so bad that I try to avoid using it! Most of my pictures are taken with the f/1.8 50mm or the 70-300. If I find that I use an 18-70 a lot, I could well end up chopping it in for the more expensive 16-85 at some point - but I want to find out how much I use it first. I suspect the answer will be "lots", though.