Reading mode: Light Dark

Best "cheap" walk around aka travel lens for a d300

Go to last post
M

millsart

Senior Member
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
37
Location
US
I've recently switched over from Canon and bought the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's and a D3. For a second body I just bought a D300 and while it obviously works great with the exisiting glass, I was thinking for some non work related photography, it would be nice to have a lightweight lens.

24-70 just isn't wide enough on the crop and the 14-24 really is a bit to wide, plus both are just a little big/heavy for walking take happy snapshot type photography

So I started looking for some options and there were enough to make my head spin

Just from Nikon's own offerings I see the 16-85, 17-70 I think, 18-105, 18-55, 24-70 and so forth. Then theres Tamron, Sigma etc all with other models in similar ranges as well.

So whats probably the best overall "value" in terms of cost, size/weight, range and image quality.

I'd probably be leaning towards the 16-85 as it sounds like the most versatile overall range, has VR and I'm assuming good IQ, but that assumption is simply based on it being more expensive that the others.

As a Canon shooter I never paid any attention to all these lenses when they came out so would appreciate any advice on which models most folks here have been having the best luck with.

Remember as well, this will be on a D300.

If Im going to carry the D3, might as well carry the heavier 2.8 glass
 
You could try the 18-70 AF-s Nikkor.

If you arent on a tight budget, the 16-85VR might be your best bet, although much more expensive.
--
-Shawn

Nikon D70 + Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF, Nikon D1, Nikon 12-24mm f/4 AF-S, Nikon 18-55mm (broken), Nikon 105mm 2.8, Nikon 55-200mm AF-S(FOR SALE), Nikon 70-300mm VR AF-S, Sigma 70-300 Macro, Nikon 28-105mm AF, SB-800 x2
Website is currently down
 
I have 2 setups that I use and like. My one-lens choice is the 18-200 VR, and my 2-lens setup is the Tamron SP 17-50 2.8 coupled with the 70-300 VR if I need more focal length. Both of these are relatively inexpensive and considerably smaller and lighter than your $$$ glass, but I am happy with the image quality.
Works for me.
--
Cullen
 
I use 16-85mm as walk around lens with my D40x when traveling in Hokkaido last month. I am very happy with this lens as it delivers sharp photos. It should be even better if it is on D300.
 
Be careful and test several lens copies if you want to buy AF-S 16-85. It looks like sometimes AF-S 16-85 autofocus does not work well.
 
I've tried a few travel lenses over the years and was never really happy but always accepted the need for compromise.

My current choice is the first lens that I feel does what I want it to do without much compromise and with added benefits that nI never had before.

The lens is a 16~85 VR. Nice size, excellent range, well built, excellent IQ. The bonuses are AFS and VR. All it lacks is a fast aperture, but if it had that it wouldn't be a travel lens any more.

I never had the option of the 18~105 when I made my choice, but I think I'd miss the extra 2mm at the wide end more than I would extra reach, and I don't know if it is so well built.
 
Hi, I recently changed from the 18-70 to the 16-85, and am really happy with it. As a quick snapshot setup it excels, particularly when set to use auto ISO on my D300.

The sharpness and colour are perfect, and the build quality is pretty good for a mid-range lens.

Hope this helps,
dD
 
I really like my nikon 28-105 as a walkaround lens for the following reasons.

Good bokeh.
Nice Zoom.
good fidelity colours.
Quite sharp.

Exposes correctly on my D80 . ( unlike my sigma 17-70 where my D80 metering overexposes everything)
wide enough ( 45 mm is what our eyes sees , I recall)
usable macro

Andrew

Samples:









 
Thanks to everyone who responded, I appreaciate all of your opinions and feedback

Sounds like the 16-85 is the way to go I think

I do like that its the widest option, about 24mm equiv, so thats pretty nice and gives it a bit of an edge over the rest and Im sure I'd be using the wider end more than the long end. Second that it has VR, as well as the AF-S motor both are nice luxuries as well.

I wish it was closer in price to some of the other options of course but I'd rather pay more for something that I know works well and that I'd actually want to use and can count on.
 
If you like the wide end, think of this as a 24mm f3.5 VR lens that can be handheld down to around 1/4 second - great for those seaside shots with moving water.

Best of luck with your decision.
dD
millsart said:
Thanks to everyone who responded, I appreaciate all of your opinions
and feedback

Sounds like the 16-85 is the way to go I think

I do like that its the widest option, about 24mm equiv, so thats
pretty nice and gives it a bit of an edge over the rest and Im sure
I'd be using the wider end more than the long end. Second that it
has VR, as well as the AF-S motor both are nice luxuries as well.

I wish it was closer in price to some of the other options of course
but I'd rather pay more for something that I know works well and that
I'd actually want to use and can count on.
Click to expand...
 
I think 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR are the best option.
millsart said:
I've recently switched over from Canon and bought the 14-24, 24-70
and 70-200 2.8's and a D3. For a second body I just bought a D300
and while it obviously works great with the exisiting glass, I was
thinking for some non work related photography, it would be nice to
have a lightweight lens.

24-70 just isn't wide enough on the crop and the 14-24 really is a
bit to wide, plus both are just a little big/heavy for walking take
happy snapshot type photography

So I started looking for some options and there were enough to make
my head spin

Just from Nikon's own offerings I see the 16-85, 17-70 I think,
18-105, 18-55, 24-70 and so forth. Then theres Tamron, Sigma etc
all with other models in similar ranges as well.

So whats probably the best overall "value" in terms of cost,
size/weight, range and image quality.

I'd probably be leaning towards the 16-85 as it sounds like the most
versatile overall range, has VR and I'm assuming good IQ, but that
assumption is simply based on it being more expensive that the others.

As a Canon shooter I never paid any attention to all these lenses
when they came out so would appreciate any advice on which models
most folks here have been having the best luck with.

Remember as well, this will be on a D300.

If Im going to carry the D3, might as well carry the heavier 2.8 glass
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top