D500 needs a walk around lens

yukongold said:

Looking to replace my Sigma 18-200 with a different option (Sigma AF is shot and not sure I want to put more money into it - already sent out twice for other issues...). Looking to use on D500 or possibly my D7100 backup. Would like to keep cost to less than $1000Cdn. Options might include the Nikkor 16-80 f2.8-4 (white box), Nikkor 16-85 f3.5, Nikkor 18-200 f3.5, Nikkor 24-85 FX, Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 used, Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I will use this for a walk around shooting landscapes, nature, close birds, street, architecture etc. Which do you think would make me happiest? TIA.

My other lenses include prime 35 and 50 f1.8, Nikkor 70-300, Nikkor 105 f2.8, Tokina 11-20 f2.8 and Tamron 150-600 G2. I had a Nikkor 18-70 but gave it to my son. Maybe just get another 18-70 (very cheap now)?

If I go with the wider options, will I still use the 11-20? Maybe not.... yeah, I'll keep it anyway...

Click to expand...

I have used the old Tamron 17-50/2.8 without VC and the Tamron 16-300 on a D7100 recently, and I have liked the results. I will mostly use the Nikkor 16-80/2.8-4 on a D500 from now, for me it is a very good compromise, and 16mm at the wide end is very often useful - most FF standard zooms go to 24mm. If you don't care too much about resolution, the old Nikkor 16-85 is also very handy - I would have chosen that instead of the 18-70. Those zooms tend to be a bit weak at the long end, patching with a AF-S Nikkor 85/1.8 has been very useful for me.

yukongold said:

Looking to replace my Sigma 18-200 with a different option (Sigma AF is shot and not sure I want to put more money into it - already sent out twice for other issues...). Looking to use on D500 or possibly my D7100 backup. Would like to keep cost to less than $1000Cdn. Options might include the Nikkor 16-80 f2.8-4 (white box), Nikkor 16-85 f3.5, Nikkor 18-200 f3.5, Nikkor 24-85 FX, Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 used, Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I will use this for a walk around shooting landscapes, nature, close birds, street, architecture etc. Which do you think would make me happiest? TIA.

My other lenses include prime 35 and 50 f1.8, Nikkor 70-300, Nikkor 105 f2.8, Tokina 11-20 f2.8 and Tamron 150-600 G2. I had a Nikkor 18-70 but gave it to my son. Maybe just get another 18-70 (very cheap now)?

If I go with the wider options, will I still use the 11-20? Maybe not.... yeah, I'll keep it anyway...

Click to expand...

I currently have the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Good combo, but the greatest irritant is the missing 15mm between 55 and 70 ... I suggest the 16-80 if within your budget. I also have the 18-70, good but not the same IQ. Avoid the 18-200 of any brand, zoom ratio should be kept below 5.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

I sold the Nikon 24-70 f2.8G for the Nikon 24-70 f2.8E and bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 and found the Tamron better in just about every aspect. It was certainly sharper then both the Nikons after using the Tap-in console to fine tune the Tamron. Especially when using in on an APS-C body like the D500 where you crop out the outer edges of the lens when it can be a touch soft.

The 18-200's are an 11.1x zoom and anything over a 5x I won't use anymore. The Nikon 16-80 is WAY overpriced and for the same money used ($600-$700) or new ($1100) the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 lens ii far superior and a fixed f2.8 and not a variable aperture. It's also not some plastic consumer lens like the 16-80.

For walking around I take the Tamron 24-70 and the Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 Macro G2 with me. I just have a Molle belt (the one that you can detached from the LowePro ProTactic 450 AW II bag) with a lens case that will fit both

I have been in that spot so many times... Tried to fill the gap between the Tokina 11-16 f2.8ii and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII. I also have the nikon 50 f1.8G which is soooooo reliable, but not the most flexible. This is what I went through:

- Sigma 17-50 f2.8. For the money it's amazing, but only issue the central AF point, and even then it's a bit unreliable. Shines in the >35mm range. 17-24 is ok...
- Nikon 17-55 f2.8. Rigid, would use it for fast action (not panning so hand held shooting of cyclists quite a challenge). Really bad field curvature and landscape is not what this lens was designed for.
- Nikon 16-80. Very mixed feelings for this one. Shines in the 16-24mm range, so a great travel lens. Took it to Peru, a crazy rainfall and the dessert caused no issued to the D500 & 16-80 combo. Beyond the 24mm range, emmmmmm, don't know. For its price you want more. Maybe my sample was not that good as other people praise this lens.

- Currently I have the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. I love it! But, it's heavier than the rest, it is 18mm, and you need to go through the pain of fine tuning using the sigma dock. Even after doing that, I would not use the non-central AF points or use it for action. 35mm is not its strongest point, but even so it still beats the Nikon 35 1.8dx (in terms of resolution and pop).

- Nikon 16-85. It was ok but seriously saw no point in having that on a D500. Felt so wrong. Similarly to the 16-80, felt like it was shining in the 16-24mm range. I would recommend it for a D5500, not for a D500.

All in all, the 16-80 is the most versatile for general use, but for non-landscape shots you will not be blown away.

At one point I owned the 17-55/2.8, 16-85/3.5-4.5 and the 16-80/2.8-4.0 at the same time.

The 17-55 was the best made and had a constant 2.8 aperture. It was also, the least versatile, heaviest and softest in the corners, even when stopped down to 5.6 to match the other lens.

The 16-85 was sharper in the corners than the 17-55 and was light, versatile, inexpensive and had VR. It is slow at the tele end, though.

The 16-80 is the sharpest, has superior VR, is light and although a variable aperture, is fast. It isn't as well made as the 17-55 but to make it so would be to make it heavier and for me a walkaround lens should be easy to carry all day.

I only have the 16-80 now.

I'm very happy with my Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4.0 macro.

Since you are used to shooting with an ultra-zoom (ie 18-200) as a walk-around lens, the real question is will you be happy with a lens with a smaller range?

I've shot with a Nikon 18-200 as my walk-around lens for the longest time under DX and when I moved to FX, I got the 24-120 which doesn't have the same range and sometimes I find myself wishing that it did. Once you answer if you can live with a smaller zoom, then you need to ask - how much smaller?

I can only say what I like to use on my D500 for a walk around (I tend to like wider for my "normal" lens). Have a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 but once I got the Sigma Art 18- 35mm f/1.8, that one has just sits collecting dust. Pluses for the Sigma- very sharp and very fast. It is smaller than the 17-55mm (width with the lens hood) but the weight is a little more (55 g heavier- more good quality glass) and costs considerably less- about half as much. The Sigma does have a more limited zoom range which may be a negative for some people. I usually also carry a Sigma 8-16mm for really wide.

--
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Wayne Gretzky.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz/galleries

For a "walk around" i have the 18-140, it's got decent IQ, it's light, good VR, a bit more range and cheap. I'll generally have it in my sling bag when I'm out with the telephoto's just incase i see something worth taking a photo of.

If i want to do anything proper i have the FF lenses and it's more planned so i don't really consider that walk around.

atsangarides said:

- Nikon 16-80. Very mixed feelings for this one. Shines in the 16-24mm range, so a great travel lens. Took it to Peru, a crazy rainfall and the dessert caused no issued to the D500 & 16-80 combo. Beyond the 24mm range, emmmmmm, don't know. For its price you want more. Maybe my sample was not that good as other people praise this lens.

- Nikon 16-85. It was ok but seriously saw no point in having that on a D500. Felt so wrong. Similarly to the 16-80, felt like it was shining in the 16-24mm range. I would recommend it for a D5500, not for a D500.

All in all, the 16-80 is the most versatile for general use, but for non-landscape shots you will not be blown away.

Click to expand...

obviously the right focal range for a one lens kit, roughly equivalent to the 24-120mm FX lens, but in a smaller lighter package as hoped with DX. The wide angle end 24mm equivalent is really valuable. No wonder that contemporary 'norma' FX pro zooms are all like 24- ...

Nikon is quite good concerning sample variation issues. Yet, for about any lens that I put on my test stand, I can see traits of sample variation. So atsangarides' sample really could be a lemon.

Compare also Nikon's MTF expectations with other lens options.

Below a cityscape with a 16-80 at 35mm


D7100_16-80_35_f56_ZH OOC exposure adjusted

and another example with 16-80 at 80mm f/5.6:


D7200 16-80 at 80mm f/5.6 lateral color removed in PS + contrast adjustments for subdued light.

I used the Nikon 18-200 with my D300, but I don't think it's adequate for the D500.

I'm using the Nikon 16-80 on the D500 and have been happy with that in terms of image quality, versatility and size/weight. Sure I wish it was longer, but I understand that a superzoom just won't have the quality I want for a 20 MP sensor.

Robert Cohen said:

I used the Nikon 18-200 with my D300, but I don't think it's adequate for the D500.

I'm using the Nikon 16-80 on the D500 and have been happy with that in terms of image quality, versatility and size/weight. Sure I wish it was longer, but I understand that a superzoom just won't have the quality I want for a 20 MP sensor.

Click to expand...

I see that the OP was using the Sigma 18-200 on their D7100 and D500 so at least according to their point of view, the Sigma did provide the level of quality they were expecting/looking for even on a D500.

Could the quality have been better? Yes but that's something that the OP has to weigh for themselves in comparison to the focal length.

I am more than happy with my Nikon 18-300mm VR II (https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm-vr.htm) - I have a macro lens for nature and a wide-angle for buildings, but as like as not, the 18-300 zoom is always to be found on the camera.

I am happy with my 18-140mm lens so far. It really is a good walk-around for my D300S.

Do not consider this from my personal experiences,

Nikkor 17-55 f2.8

It breaks after less than two years of use, zoom ring stuck at certain range, cost arm and leg to repair!!

End up buying a sigma 17-50, for sale at $369, happy with it.

ContaxRTSII said:

Do not consider this from my personal experiences,

Nikkor 17-55 f2.8

It breaks after less than two years of use, zoom ring stuck at certain range, cost arm and leg to repair!!

End up buying a sigma 17-50, for sale at $369, happy with it.

Click to expand...

When shopping for it, I got to use a Sigma 17-50 for a while, and I had troube focusing in low light (night-club lighting). So I sprang for the Nikkor 17.55/2.8.

YMMV ... my sample is over 13 years old, and has been in use since without a problem except a slight squeak, which was fixed for free.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

yukongold said:

Thanx to all!! I have ordered the 16-80 on e-bay (slightly used, "mint") from a Japanese supplier. When I analyzed my Sigma shots I found I rarely went much beyond 100mm, and I was concerned about losing the 55-70 range if I went with the 17-55. Again - many thanx!

Click to expand...

Japanese supplier? That means it's a grey market lens and you'll never be able to have Nikon service it under any circumstance. Nikon USA will not touch for cleaning or repair for any reason a NON USA camera or lens even if you agree to pay. Just a heads up in case you were not aware. Not sure if you are in the US or not but if you are this should matter.

If the lens has already been ordered, that's that. It can be repaired by independent repair facilities even if Nikon won't.