Walkabout lens for D500

[MikeP7000]

I want something I can take on hikes that has a more "general purpose" focal length than my 200-500 (I mostly do wildlife photography). I'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8: what do you think? Any others I should look at?

I would like it be good for landscapes and wonder if the 70-200 fl might be too long for this on a DX body.

--
https://flic.kr/ps/37Khof

 

[Richard Dutton]

• you MikeP7000 wrote:

I want something I can take on hikes that has a more "general purpose" focal length than my 200-500 (I mostly do wildlife photography). I'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8: what do you think? Any others I should look at?

I would like it be good for landscapes and wonder if the 70-200 fl might be too long for this on a DX body.

( I went for standard and WA - already have the afp 70-300 fx )

I decided to do much the same but didnt want to spend much money. In fact I am using my D500 more for general photography now so glad I got the lenses.

As well as the older pro classic 17-55 /2.8 AF-D and the af- s 16-80 there are a couple of older bright standatd zoom: a sigma 17-50 OS and a tamron 17-50 in both vc and unstabilised versions. I went for the unstabilised tamron but I think they are all pretty good and inexpensive. Would probably go for the sigma now cos of its os.

Thom Hogan likes the Tokina 11-16 ( three versions now ) or the 11-20. There are also a couple of sigmas in th WA range. I got a tamron hld vc 10-24 which is less bright and ok stopped diwn a bit for landscapes. Now I would get the Tokina 11-16 - latest version 2020 - Tokina AT-X 116 f/2.8 PRO DX II (11-16mm)

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

I want something I can take on hikes that has a more "general purpose" focal length than my 200-500 (I mostly do wildlife photography). I'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8: what do you think? Any others I should look at?

I would like it be good for landscapes and wonder if the 70-200 fl might be too long for this on a DX body.

People shoot landscapes using a huge variation of lenses, and some get excellent results with macro lenses, as they are sharp from side to side (the Nikon AF-S 60/2.8 comes to mind). I've seen fantastic shots with the Sigma 40 Art, by the way.

My choice would be the Nikon 70-200/4.0G, as that allows you to get closer than 1 meter (not sure if the other Nikon 70-200s does that). It is also lighter!

I use my Sigma 30 Art a lot, a cheap DX lens with fantastic center sharpness, not as impressive in the extreme corners. In short, a delightful lens.

In short, a general-purpose lens needs to be sharp, fast (2.8 or better), rugged, not too heavy, and not very costly.

A prime, around 20-60mm is my bet, or why not try the kit lens AF-P 18-55 VR, in no way a crappy lens, if a bit on the slow side?!

 

[MikeP7000]

• you MikeP7000 wrote:

I want something I can take on hikes that has a more "general purpose" focal length than my 200-500 (I mostly do wildlife photography). I'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8: what do you think? Any others I should look at?

I would like it be good for landscapes and wonder if the 70-200 fl might be too long for this on a DX body.

( I went for standard and WA - already have the afp 70-300 fx )

I decided to do much the same but didnt want to spend much money. In fact I am using my D500 more for general photography now so glad I got the lenses.

As well as the older pro classic 17-55 /2.8 AF-D and the af- s 16-80 there are a couple of older bright standatd zoom: a sigma 17-50 OS and a tamron 17-50 in both vc and unstabilised versions. I went for the unstabilised tamron but I think they are all pretty good and inexpensive. Would probably go for the sigma now cos of its os.

Thom Hogan likes the Tokina 11-16 ( three versions now ) or the 11-20. There are also a couple of sigmas in th WA range. I got a tamron hld vc 10-24 which is less bright and ok stopped diwn a bit for landscapes. Now I would get the Tokina 11-16 - latest version 2020 - Tokina AT-X 116 f/2.8 PRO DX II (11-16mm)

Thanks, but I already have WA covered with the Nikon DX 12-24.

 

[Alnitak]

I don't do much wide angle, so really liked the 24-120mm lenses on my D100, D200, D300s and even D500. It gives you good range for walk-about, even in woods environments and on vacation. Matches well with your 12-24 as well. I love my 70-200, but having the wider view and still some reach is nice. Another alternative is the 18-140mm lens, though it is slower.

The quintessential "walk-about" DSLR DX lens is the 16-80mm. Got mine for a great deal and it is a terrific lens. That is what sits on my D500 mostly.

 

[nhr5005]

I had (well, still have) the 16-85 for my D90. Very versatile and my only lens for quite some time with DX. The 16-80 is supposed to be even better.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

Gotta D500 here also. If you're 'walkin around' doin the vacation thang... you're mostly gonna be shooting pano's of skylines, sunsets and nightlights... soooooo... a decent wide angle should be a priority. People watching and some distant wildlife captures will also come into play... so you'll either be shooting wide-angle... or telephoto. A 'standard lens' wouldn't be much of an asset. My 2 lens recommendation would be...

1. The Nikon 12-24 F4/ED. Great lightweight lens that's pretty sharp and a wide angle superstar... and probably the lens you'll be using at night.

2. The Nikon 70-300 AF/P-VR. Very lightweight, extremely fast focusing... not the sharpest or fastest crayon in the box, but plenty sharp enough to render some quality images.

I have both these lenses. They come highly recommended here...

A gallery with these lenses in use: http://www.viewbug.com/member/garyabigt




Here's Shodire and the 12-24... SM Cruiseboat Photoshoot!

 

[briantilley]

Gotta D500 here also. If you're 'walkin around' doin the vacation thang... you're mostly gonna be shooting pano's of skylines, sunsets and nightlights... soooooo... a decent wide angle should be a priority. People watching and some distant wildlife captures will also come into play... so you'll either be shooting wide-angle... or telephoto. A 'standard lens' wouldn't be much of an asset. My 2 lens recommendation would be...

1. The Nikon 12-24 F4/ED. Great lightweight lens that's pretty sharp and a wide angle superstar... and probably the lens you'll be using at night.

A pretty pointless recommendation, given that the OP says he already has the AF-S 12-24mm f/4 DX.

 

[Alnitak]

I had (well, still have) the 16-85 for my D90. Very versatile and my only lens for quite some time with DX. The 16-80 is supposed to be even better.

I used the 16-85 on my D300s for a long time, but never really fell in love with it. It was sharp, but always seemed too slow, which is part of the reason I found myself using the 24-120 f/4 generally. I am much happier with the 16-80 on my D500.

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

Used to travel with a 16-80 and 70-300 AFP. that worked out well for me.

 

[Alnitak]

Used to travel with a 16-80 and 70-300 AFP. that worked out well for me.

Nice light setup! Tough to do better!

 

[bluzman]

I've found that my Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Contemporary on my D500 is an excellent general purpose, walking around lens. YMMV

 

[BGD300V1]

He only needs to add a 70-300mm AF-P VR FX and he's got a decent kit.

--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611

 

[Blufftonian]

Used to travel with a 16-80 and 70-300 AFP. that worked out well for me.

I used to travel with the same lenses but I found that 300 wasn't really enough, and I hardly used it anyway.

So now it's just the excellent 16-80, and it's typically on my backup D7200 body, rather than my D500 which stays at home with the 500 PF attached...which 95% of the time IS my walk about kit.

 

[bjn70]

Used to travel with a 16-80 and 70-300 AFP. that worked out well for me.

Sounds like a good combination to me- covers a lot of ground and the 70-300 is relatively small and light.

Walkabout means different things to different people. When I used a DX body I typically carried a 10-20 and 17-50, usually nothing longer. Now I carry FX and carry 18-35, 24-70 or 28-105, and if I carry a longer lens it is either 70-200 f4 or Sigma 100-400.

 

[Ike_Welshman]

I like a lightly telephoto for landscapes. For size weight sharpness the nifty Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G on the D500 very much checks those boxes.

 

[cyuill2007]

I want something I can take on hikes that has a more "general purpose" focal length than my 200-500 (I mostly do wildlife photography). I'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8: what do you think? Any others I should look at?

I would like it be good for landscapes and wonder if the 70-200 fl might be too long for this on a DX body.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

I want something I can take on hikes that has a more "general purpose" focal length than my 200-500 (I mostly do wildlife photography). I'm thinking about the 70-200 2.8: what do you think? Any others I should look at?

I would like it be good for landscapes and wonder if the 70-200 fl might be too long for this on a DX body.

I bought a Sigma 100-400 over the Nikon 200-500 because it was noticeably smaller and lighter - a better walk around lens for me. I haven’t been disappointed.

I also seriously considered the AF-P 70-300 FX lens, which is even smaller and lighter, and can be used wide open at 300mm. A very nice lens. GarysInSoCal suggested pairing it with the AF-S 12-24 f/4 DX lens, which would make a pretty good combo IMO.

My current DSLR walk around set up is a D500 with Sigma 100-400, and AF-P 18-55 VR DX and AF-P 10-20 VR DX kit lenses. It fits into an old compact LowePro bag designed to fit an SLR body and three not-too-big lenses.

Excellent suggestions!

The AF-P 10-20 and the AF-P 70-300 FX are on my wish list!

 

[Michiel953]

Never a zoom, always a 35mm full frame equivalent.