walkabout lens d7000

[evan47]

i am thinking of getting a wide to short/mid zoom for events and general days out in the spring/summer. f2.8 would be nice but not essential. i already have the tokina 11-16, i have been thinking of the sigma 17-50, 17-70. nikon 16-85 or maybe the 35mm or 50mm prime. i have a pair of d7000s so will have my 11-16 on one, plus whatever else on the other.,,,,,,,your thoughts please?

[Manfred M]

My walk about lens on my D90 is either the f/1.8 35mm lens or less frequently my f/2.8 24-70mm lens. I have the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm as well, but frankly it is too wide for the type of images I would be shooting in walk around mode. I use the f/1.8 50mm as a walk about lens on my full-frame D800, but find it to be less useful on a crop-frame sensor camera, just a bit too long.

[NorthernFocus]

The 16-85 is a nice range, good quality for the price, and reasonably light. It pairs well with D7k.

[gtpete]

Most people when referring to a walk about lenses choose a zoom but it all depends on where your walking and what you are shooting. Not to mention your budget.
There are many options out there.
Can you enlighten us on the above?

[Melkus]

I got the Sigma 17-50mm and would call it my walk around lens. Shot wide open it's a bit soft but no worth than any other in this price range also it's slow to focused in low light even at f/2.8 but that not a problem for me since if I'm going to be working in low light I will switch out to my 35mm 1.8. Over all I'm happy with it, is a good upgrade-to-the-kit-lens option

[AB26]

I cannot speak for others but IMHO the Nikon 18-300 F3.5 VR lens would suit me fine as a walkabout lens. At the moment I have an 18-135 that is on my camera most of the time. With the 70-300 I miss the wider angle when walking about. With a 35mm F1.8 the reach is missing when wanting to capture something a little further away. The 18-200mm will also be a great walkabout and is a lot cheaper than the 18-300.

[Black Pearl]

I have the AF-S 16-85mm VR as a walk about as its wide enough (24mm) for most things and long enough (127.5mm) to have a bit of reach when you need it.
If I was looking today I'd go with the AF-S 18-200mm VR as it has the extra reach. The 300 version is nice but starts getting heavy.

[davidedric]

I have the Sigma 17-70 on a Canon aps-c body. I find it a good quality lens, and the 2.8 maximum aperture at the wider end is certainly useful. I wonder what events you are thinking of, and whether it might be a bit short. I also have a Tamron 18-270 which I would regard as a real walkabout lens, but as with all "super zooms" you do pay a penalty with IQ so it really depends on what trade-off you want to make.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Evan,

I use the Nikon 18-200mm as my walkabout lens - because I'll shoot anything that attracts me and that might be a bit far off.

I always expect to pay the IQ 'price' for the 11 x zoom range, but am usually pleasantly surprised, especially after the RAW shots have been through ACR in CS5, which nicely removes the common lens 'defects'.

Sure, on some occasions, I'd love it to be faster, but then it would be too heavy to walkabout with all day.

I have considered getting the 35mm/1.8, quite cheap, but still possibly too narrow, the new 28/1.8 looks interesting, but it's quite a bit bigger, heavier and costly than the 35. The 24/1.4 is (for me) just silly money, but a colleague gets stunning results on a D800 (FF) with it (and I believe it's his only lens!).

Cheers,

[Brev00]

There is more to a midrange than just the exact focal lengths covered. I was up in the air for a while when I was in the market. Should I get a 17-50 2.8, the well regarded Nikon 16-85, or the Sigma 17-70 os? The first group has the advantage of the relatively fast speed, but I did not like stopping at 50mm. The 16-85 had the ideal range but I was turned off by reports of average to below average bokeh. I purchased the 17-70 os which is a very versatile compromise. Kind of fast but not fixed. Kind of close but not a macro. The range takes me from a very useful 17mm to the very practical 70mm. My telephoto starts at 70 so that gives me 17-300 with two lenses. The one single factor that persuaded me to get the 17-70 was the bokeh. It is very sweet. Many do not share my priorities and get one of the others. You have to really find out what specific features you need and want. Good luck.

[Melkus]

Picking a lens really comes down to asking your self 6 qustions and they are.

1.Determine the focal length you'll need
2.Decide if you want a prime or zoom lens
3.Select a maximum aperture
4.Choose between first or third party lenses
5.Evaluate any extra features
6.Read reviews and narrow your options