Hi, I've got a d300 body and I'm wanting to get one lens I can use for most things. I have limited funds so will probably end up getting a used Nikon or a new third party. Any suggestions as to which general purpose lenses are good to get would be great.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
One lens for d300
- Thread starter matttr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d300
Emil Varadi
Senior Member
The most useful zoom on DX. Full stop.
romfordbluenose
Veteran Member
Ay! +1
Still miss those days...
If you should need wider, as I eventually did, make it a two-lens set. The Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 with Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 is still in my book the perfect DX-kit!
Now on FF, and it's all a mess... sigh...
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Senior Member
Used Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX go for under half the new-price.
17070 f2.8-4 sigma C. Sold my 16-85 nikon after using this lens for a few days. Maybe 10 years ago the 16-85 was a good choice, there are better options today. The simga has better IQ, is a stop faster at the same physical size and weight and has a much closer min focus distance. Oh and the bokeh isn't butt ugly either. 
Let the personal attacks and flames begin!
Let the personal attacks and flames begin!
Ray Ritchie
Senior Member
10 years ago the 16-85 was not available - it was announced in January of 2008.
As another alternative to the Sigma 17-70, the Sigma 18-35 is probably a much higher-rated current choice. Having said that, though, my standard lens on the D300 was and is the 17-55. The f/2.8 is really useful, and the lens is built like a tank.
As another alternative to the Sigma 17-70, the Sigma 18-35 is probably a much higher-rated current choice. Having said that, though, my standard lens on the D300 was and is the 17-55. The f/2.8 is really useful, and the lens is built like a tank.
Osvaldo Cristo
Senior Member
Fully agree.
For DX, the best single lens kit is Nikkor 16-85. Undisputable.
Also for DX, the best two lens kit is Nikkor 12-24 f/4 paired with Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR (previously the variable aperture AFS version and even the AFD version). I used that two-lenses kit since 2002 with my D100 followed by D200 and D300S.
For FX the best single lens kit is Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR - at last from my own experience. I have enjoyed that lens on my D810 since the beginning of September and most of my 14,000 shots with that camera were made with Nikkor 24-120 f/4 VR. I am plenty satisfied.
Fot two lenses kit at FX, I add Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR. My own perfect kit for travel.
All the best,
Oh excuse me, 7 years ago... Doesn't change anything else about my post. Years ago it was the only game in town, there are better choices today. All the people who post it's the "hand down best choice" haven't used anything else.
There are many lenses much better...
But the Nikkor 16-85 is still a very *good* lens and the recommendation stands.
My friend, who bought mine, still haven't grown tired of raving on about how perfect the range is, and how very, very few times he has needed more reach.
And if you (OP) have other Nikkors, you may feel the same annoyance as I did with the zoom and focus rings... they are operating anti-Nikkor!
I know... noobish! but still...
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
BirgerH
Veteran Member
Yes - let the war begin.17070 f2.8-4 sigma C. Sold my 16-85 nikon after using this lens for a few days. Maybe 10 years ago the 16-85 was a good choice, there are better options today. The simga has better IQ, is a stop faster at the same physical size and weight and has a much closer min focus distance. Oh and the bokeh isn't butt ugly either.
Let the personal attacks and flames begin!
--
Stacey
I simply can't figure out, why that 16-85 is that recommended:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...kon-on-Nikon-D300s___172_614_377_614_1054_614
no way it beats the two Sigmas suggested - and for (anyway here) $200 more ????
Nikon do have the very expensive 17-55 f:2.8 - at four times the Price of Sigma and Tamron equivalent - and not even beating them.
And to the OP - my opinion - having a DSLR is NOT having one lens for the most - but having interchangeable lenses to do the most best. To me - it's either planning what to shoot - or at least wearing three lenses.
Cheers Stacey
BirgerH.
Last edited:
Alnitak
Leading Member
Depending upon your budget, best inexpensive lens for GP may be the 18-105mm. You can find them for around $200.
BirgerH
Veteran Member
Wrong guy for the answer - will never Again buy a lens with more than 5 times zoom - too many compromises
BirgerH.
Alnitak
Leading Member
How do you know I'm the wrong guy...you know nothing about me. I have the 16-85mm since it came out and am not very impressed with it. For the money, the 18-105 is a good alternative. Besides, you can offer a different opinion without attacking the poster. Go back under the bridge, troll.Wrong guy for the answer - will never Again buy a lens with more than 5 times zoom - too many compromises
BirgerH.
joejack951
Senior Member
Moral of the story for the OP: there are many choices and all of them are pretty good.
My suggestion: buy based on your focal length and max aperture needs. If you need the max focal length range in one lens, the Tamron 16-300mm can't be beat. If you only need one 'normal' focal length and the fastest aperture (for the money), the Nikon 35/1.8 DX or Sigma 30/1.4 are both good choices, too. Anything in between has its uses; whether or not those lenses match YOUR needs is, obviously, highly personal.
My suggestion: buy based on your focal length and max aperture needs. If you need the max focal length range in one lens, the Tamron 16-300mm can't be beat. If you only need one 'normal' focal length and the fastest aperture (for the money), the Nikon 35/1.8 DX or Sigma 30/1.4 are both good choices, too. Anything in between has its uses; whether or not those lenses match YOUR needs is, obviously, highly personal.
BirgerH
Veteran Member
I was the wrong guy - I think you tried to answer the OP - that's not meHow do you know I'm the wrong guy...you know nothing about me. I have the 16-85mm since it came out and am not very impressed with it. For the money, the 18-105 is a good alternative. Besides, you can offer a different opinion without attacking the poster. Go back under the bridge, troll.Wrong guy for the answer - will never Again buy a lens with more than 5 times zoom - too many compromises
BirgerH.
BirgerH.
WarrenInOntario
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 378
- Reaction score
- 154
Start with a pre owned 18-70 Nikon zoom and save for 24-70 replacement if needed.
That was my route to photo adventure!
H
historianx
Guest
Is there a big difference in quality between the 18-70 and 16-85? The 16-85 does have VR and more reach so looks appealing, but is much more expensive.
Many thanks for all the help guys, very helpful.
Peter Damroth
Leading Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum