DSLRUsers.com

Hi everyone,

Just wondering what everyones opinion is on a good walkabout lens?

I'm going to be building my camera kit from my d70s, 18-70mm and 50mm f1.8.
Eventually when i have enough money i will get a 70-200mm 2.8 lens of some sort for some zoom shots but in the mean time i would like to cover the medium to wide area. The 18-70 kit lens covers this quite nicely however i am now looking for something a little bit better.

Keeping to the lower end of the market i am looking mostly at a 28-70mm 2.8 sigma as an upgrade from the kit lens as well as a 10-20mm sigma.
Both of these lens are around the $500 mark and i hope are a lot better than the kit lens?

What is concerning me is, will this be a good combination for when i am out and about. is the 28-70 wide enough as a walk about lens or will i be constantly changing ever 5 mins?
Is there maybe an equivalent lens in terms of quality to the 28-70 f2.8 that is slightly wider and can be had for ~$500.

Let me know your thoughts? Thanks

consider a 17-55dx

although the 17-35 is probably the better choice it has a shorter minimum focus distance

the nikon 28-70 f2.8 isn't wide enough for a walk around lens on a digital slr with the crop factor, used on film cameras it's fine

but it depends how you shoot. The 28-70 will force you to think about how you take a picture
it doesnt have the funky distortion the 17mm have
the minimum focus distance isn't as good as the 17-35
in a crunch it helps to have a wider lens

so i'd say the 17-55dx

Tough choices, not sure how much experiance your have I'd try just shooting with the kit lense for a month or two, its a nice lense really, and see what you want more wider or longer.

You've chosen about $1200 bucks worth of glass, Wendellts solution is a good one if you can afford it and don't need a longer lense.

For another $300 bucks or so you could get a 18-200 VR, certainly a nice piece of glass.

More expensive than your 28-70 from Sigma, a 24-70 f2.8 maybe worth a look. Depends if you won't miss the wider angle.

Really the 17-55DX is a supreme lense...

I have a Sigma 10-20mm ... fantastic for landscapes and up close work at the end of the day it's upto your budget and shooting style.

Walking around you may want something wider and wider.

Where do you 'walk around' mostly? Many other people find walking around places is only need a lens in front and be the most wide angle it is, that choice can fall into the nikkor 12-24dx or the longer 17-55dx

Take a little note, and go through pictures you've taken in the past/recently in 'walk arounds' and check the EXIF data. See what focal length you use most often.

If the zone lies below 35mm, then go for the wide angles, and if most of them are at 18mm, go for the ultra wides. Then if you find mostly over 35mm, you may want something longer like the 17-55 or 28-70 range.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - within the budget, compares favourably with the three times more expensive Nikkor 17-55DX.

if i knew about this, I would of got it

sigma 24-70 f2.8

practically speaking i hardly use the f2.8 on my 28-70 im stopping it down to f4 most of the time

Hi Garlino.
You are after a walk-around lens and there have been many threads on this topic already. Do a search and see what you can find.

Some people have chosen the 18-200VR others use the 28-70. The 18-200 covers a large range and has been chosen by many for their holiday all-in-one lens with good results. The 28-70 (nikon) is much more expensive but gives excellent quality results.

Their are many quality lenses in the Nikon range which would fill the WA to tele gaps - 17-35 (or 17-55DX) then 28-70, 70-200 etc.

I guess it comes down to what you really want in the end - don't buy a stop gap lens that you may not want to keep in the long term as this will end up costing you more (I know - I have done that in the past). It may be best to try a couple of the lenses you have in mind and save for the best of those.

You have also mentioned the 10-20 Sigma. This is in competition with the 12-24 Tokina and the 12-24DX nikon lenses. The Sigma compares quite well by all reports and is good value for money. As you mention you would like a UWA lens then this choice should probably come first.

Good luck with your choices. If only we had unlimited finances we could just buy them all.

Cheers, Mick

Well, something to think about.... I just spent 3 weeks away (2 weeks in Geelong over chrissy with the in-laws, and 1 week in Tassie on honeymoon). In geelong, I took plenty of people shots, and had the Tamron 28-75 on the camera most of the time. In Tassie, the Tokina 12-24 barely left the camera.

It all comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot.

For our longer, "proper" honeymoon in July to Canada/Alaska, I am probably going to primarily use the 12-24, with the 70-200 VR. I don't forsee a lot of portraits shot in that time, so the Tamron 28-75 will stay at home, but I might chuck in the 50/1.8 just in case.

Another alternative already mentioned here is of course the 18-200 VR. Lots of flexibility, pretty decent portability, and IMO very usable performance.

Thanks for the replies.

I have lots of other options to look into now.

I think my first purchase will be at the wide end seeing as the kit lens does give great shots which i can use in the mean time time for a walkabout until i get maybe the 24-70 f2.8 sigma.

I notice most of my shots are either at 18mm or somewhere around the 30mm + range. So i think the 10-20 sigma or 12-24 tokina would be a good choice as i do like landscape shots.

With the two lenses above is the tokina worth the extra ~$140? Or is it just a question of do you really need the extra 2mm? Are the quality in both comparable?

It is really tough deciding what glass to purchase on a budget. Would really love the 17-55dx but for its price i can almost cover the whole zoom range for what i need

Thanks again

garlino wrote:With the two lenses above is the tokina worth the extra ~$140? Or is it just a question of do you really need the extra 2mm? Are the quality in both comparable?

They both are excellent lenses. I have the Sigma 10-20 and I like it, the extra 2mm can be crucial under tight situations, but not necessary if you can take back a step or two.

Extra bucks will get you some build quality (Tokina is tougher on the outside look, tho Sigma is not weak at all) and a stop in speed (Sigma goes down f/5.6 and Tokina stays f/4). Will these be more worthy of ~140 and extra 2mm? You decide.

Thats a tough decision.

Ill have to look into this one a little more. Is there any other opinions on these two lenses? Ill do a forum search now.

garlino wrote:i am looking mostly at a 28-70mm 2.8 sigma as an upgrade from the kit lens

Why on earth would you consider that to be an upgrade?

The kit lens is very well regarded, and has a greater range than the Sigma and it will be better constructed - I've seen them dropped with no ill effects. I would consider it to be an excellent walkaround for the few dollars that one pays for one.

The 10-20 is regard as being good, but you're asking for a walkaround, which for most people would basically not include that focal length range.

Consider the Nikkor 24-120VR, which is what I use as my walkaround, or perhaps the 18-200, although that is somewhat more expensive.

Also, consider perhaps some of the other 18-200 lenses, which will not carry the same price tag as the Nikon.
...

Both of these lens are around the $500 mark and i hope are a lot better than the kit lens?

What do you think is wrong with the kit lens? The Sigma is highly unlikely to be better.

I have probably deviated somewhat from my original post and didnt really explain it well

I am more looking on what people think about having a 10-20mm and 24-70mm in their bag for walking around.

I was under the assumption that the sigma 24-70mm sigma would be better than the kit lens since it is able to go to f2.8 within their respective ranges. Is this no the case? I know the kit lens is very well built but putting this aside is the quality of pictures better on the sigma. Say in low light performance or maybe action shots?

thanks for the replies so far

In the fact that the 24-70 can handle "low-light" situations better than the kit lens, then yes, it is better (in this regard).

However, unless you do alot of low-light shooting, you're likely to want to close the aperture anyway, possibly to the mid range to find the "sweet spot of the lens (around f8 ). By doing this, you're taking the advantage out of the "f2.8" lens.

One could also argue that the kit lens zooms to 18mm (27mm in 35mm speak), whereas the Sigma starts at 24 (36mm). If you're wanting wider for landscape, then the kit lens is much more of an advantage in this regard....although the wider you go, the more lens distortion you will get, especially with the ultra-wide lenses like 10-20 or 12-24 (which may or may not be a problem for you....as there are plenty of great software programs out there to correct the distortion - eg. DxO).

Hmm.. I didnt know that.

In that case i may look at getting a flash and macro lens first.

More things to look into and research. Thanks

garlino wrote:I am more looking on what people think about having a 10-20mm and 24-70mm in their bag for walking around.

Ok ... you're really looking to set yourself up with a basic kit to carry around with you, rather than a single lens that will sit on the front of your camera all day.

I was under the assumption that the sigma 24-70mm sigma would be better than the kit lens since it is able to go to f2.8 within their respective ranges.

This is correct; the Sigma will certainly be faster in the optical sense, meaning that in low light situations it will let more light in.

As Dave points out though, the question then becomes one of how often will you be using the lens at its maximum aperture?

If you're out and about, during the day, then there will most likely be lots of light for your images, and you won't be using the f/2.8 end of the lens's aperture scale all that frequently.

Further, and again, as Dave says, as a general rule, one tries to not use one's lenses wide open, because that is not where their sweet spot lives. Typically, most lenses will give their sharpest performance at around f/8 - f/11. This is certainly true of the kit lens, and also of the 24-120 mentioned earlier.

While I can't comment specifically on where the Sigma's sweet spot will be, I do not expect it to be much different.

So your question now becomes one of low-light usability - how often do you expect to be shooting in low-light conditions? If you expect to do this frequently, then certainly the Sigma might be one option.

But so too might the excellent value Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Ultra cheap, ultra sharp. Yes, not a zoom, but for the price, optical speed, sharpness and build quality, this (or the 50 f/1.4) is a must have in everyne's bag.

I know the kit lens is very well built but putting this aside is the quality of pictures better on the sigma. Say in low light performance or maybe action shots?

You're asking three different questions. Let's try to address each of them.

Build quality: Never, ever, underestimate the importance of this. If you're out and about, there is always the chance of a Murphy's event occurring, and if the unfortunate event does happen, you have a far better chance of continuing shooting with Nikon gear than you do with Sigma. The cost to you of unexpected repairs, or a replacement lens, might make the seemingly cheaper purchase much more expensive at some point further down the track.

Low light performance: how good is your technique? This is an essential part of shooting, whether low light or otherwise. Again - and please see my earlier comments regarding a lens's sweet spot - there may be better alternatives that may give you even better low light performance, and much sharper images, than your fist named choice.

Action shots: what sort of action? Again, technique is a most important factor, and you may need to understand the constraints of the action that you're shooting in order to best address it. For instance, I could see someone using a fairly wide angle lens were one to be shooting, say, beach volleyball from up close to the sideline.

But the same lens wouldn't be of too much use if you're shooting motorsports, would it, where shooting from the edge of the track is, basically discouraged.

The choices are never simple, and they should be based around you - what you're shooting, and how you intend to do that shooting.

Finally, and addressing the 10-20, as noted earlier, this is becoming more and more favourably regarded, and having a lens covering this range within your kit is probably not too bad an idea.

Thanks for that Gary. Much appreciated.

I shoot in low light situations quite regularly so f2.8 would come in very handy.