As the title states , what do you feel is Nikon's best DX DSLR walk - around lens for image quality and zoom focal length range usefulness on Nikon DX APS-C format DSLR's ? The Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR AF-S DX may top many lists , while others may select the Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX (VR) and still others yet may say a Sigma or other 3rd party zoom may have the image quality and zoom focal range they desire - your thoughts ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Best Nikon DX (APS-C) DSLR Walk - Around Zoom Lens ?
- Thread starter chrisD46
- Start date
airtonps
Well-known member
I have the 18-140 DX and I love it, this would be my choice for sure. Having said that, I recently purchased a FX lens 28-70mm f/2.8 and the sharpness is top notch, much better than the 18-140mm, but of course the DX has more zoom and the 18mm allows even selfies, while the 24mm is too cropped in DX bodies.
Simon Stuart
Forum Enthusiast
18-140 is my preference
Blufftonian
Senior Member
For me it's the DX 16-80. It's probably the best DX lens Nikon has ever made. I have an older 18-105, and have used the 18-140, but the IQ on them just isn't as good and it's a little bit faster than both.
Especially for landscapes, and even street photography, I find the extra 2mm of wide angle much more useful than the loss of telephoto range.
Especially for landscapes, and even street photography, I find the extra 2mm of wide angle much more useful than the loss of telephoto range.
Last edited:
Bruno Carlsson
Member
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 29
If you are ok with a used lens, you shouldn't overlook the older 16-85mm lens. They can be had for a few hindered dollars used and while the lens may not be as good as the newer 16-80mm it is still a very usable walk around lens.
GarysInSoCal
Senior Member
It's too slow and not as sharp as the 'Nanocoat' 16-80 ED-VR. This newer, sharper and faster lens eats it's lunch...
Last edited:
SoCalAngler
Senior Member
For walking around built up cities the 16-80. I much prefer the extra field of view provided by the 2mm on the wide end than I do the the longer reach on the telephoto end of the 18-140. It also provides a stop wider aperture compared to the 18-140. This lens also provides the same equivalent range as the my 24-120 Z lens I use on my Z5.
For more open open spaces where I cant get a close to a subject as I may want, or may intentionally want to keep some distance from a subject, I like 18-140. With the greater focal range the 18-140 is certainly more of convenience lens. I use one frequently and presently don't have a 16-80 (24-120 on an FX Z body replaced it). When traveling away from home on multi-day trips I tended to take the 18-140 more often unless I was certain I was going to spend most of my time in built up areas.
Blufftonian
Senior Member
"If cameras and lenses can have autofocus then why can't I?"
But you do! It's called accommodation.
en.wikipedia.org
Unless of course if you've had cataract surgery and had fixed focus IOLs put in. :-(
But you do! It's called accommodation.
Accommodation (vertebrate eye) - Wikipedia
Unless of course if you've had cataract surgery and had fixed focus IOLs put in. :-(
It depends where I'll be walking around. If I think that there's a possibility of needing some extra reach, the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 is my choice. OTOH, if I don't think that extra reach will be needed, I always will choose my SIGMA 17-70mm f/2.8-4. It's a bit wider as well as faster, and produces excellent IQ.
SoCalAngler
Senior Member
I'm self referring to mental focus with that quote in my signature here :-D
The original quote came from my wife was said to me and about me while I was not listening to her very well ( I was hearing) while I had a camera to my eye and was being talked to by another person.
We all started laughing.
The original quote came from my wife was said to me and about me while I was not listening to her very well ( I was hearing) while I had a camera to my eye and was being talked to by another person.
We all started laughing.
Blufftonian
Senior Member
If I thought 18mm at the wide end was enough (and for me it’s not quite) I’d think why stop at 105 or 140mm?
So I’d probably go for the 18-300mm VR DX.
So I’d probably go for the 18-300mm VR DX.
Blufftonian
Senior Member
:-D
I had cataract surgery. Both eyes are distance and I see perfectly from about 24 inches to infinity. I see the car dashboard perfectly. I have needed reading glasses for nearly 40 years
It will depend what you mean by "walk-around" as it is different for many people. I assume that means zooms that can at least go from wide to standard.
For me the contest will be between 3 lenses:
The sigma 17-70 can also be a contender, but I do not have it and have read very few things about it.
For me the contest will be between 3 lenses:
- Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 DX VR: easily the best build and VR, most useful range for me (24-120 FOV equivalent), very sharp all around. Not produced anymore and quite expensive.
- Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS: sharper wide open than the Nikon 16-80 in my experience, but third-party (some issues with stabilization not stopping quickly, leading to battery drain, maybe compatibility issues with some bodies, etc), less effective stabilization, restricted range and quite heavy.
- Nikon 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 DX VR: slower apertures, VR more effective than the sigma but less than the 16-80, decent image quality, great range but a bit less wide on the wide end, if you need to zoom often it is quite useful.
The sigma 17-70 can also be a contender, but I do not have it and have read very few things about it.
In terms of IQ, 17-50 is better. Bingsearch 17-50 vs 17-70. Sorry if I was not clear.
A search clearly reveals that opinions vary.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum