[Flickstah]

Hi there


I am looking for a lens for travelling. Recently, I went to South America and Israel, carrying around my D7000 and 3 lenses (sigma 10 - 24mm 4 - 5,6, nikon nikkor 18 - 105mm 3,5 - 5,6, nikon nikkor 35mm 1,8) but I really became tired of changing lenses all the time. This is why I am looking for a zoom lens which is more crisp than the Nikon 18 - 105mm, preferably nearly as sharp as the Nikon 35mm 1.8.


I don't care so much about weight and size and I wouldn't need focal lengths greater than 50mm. Shouldn't be more expensive than $1000...


Has anybody experience with the tamron 17 - 50 non VC? Or can you recommend any other lens/ two lens combo?


Thank you in advance!

[Steinar1]

I would consider the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. great travelling lens for a dx body. Sharp,  fast and light. Otherwise, the Nikon 16_85, which is a great lens for dx bodies. Quality is more than good enough when closed down a little.

[Guest]

I think you need to look at lenses that start from at least 16mm.  Cannot comment on quality in Nikon land.

[kroko]

My personal opinion about lenses it's I prefer to have less lenses but invest in quality (Nikon, Sigma, Tamron... the brand it's not the important).

It's hard to have the quality of prime lenses in any zoom lenses.

 

The 50mm it's after or before the crop factor?

 

If the 50mm it's with the crop factor see reviews of the new sigma Sigma AF 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM - I think the lens got good reviews (I am not 100% sure because I did not read alot about it)

I like the zoom range of the sigma lens but it's just a personal opinion and taste, you need to see what zoom range you like to shoot with.

[JJ_SO]

I have this Sigma, but honestly don't know if that would be my single lens on vacation? And since you're on D7000, I only can say, focussing on D7000 is not a skill I already have, maybe I could learn it, but am using more the D7100.

 

When I'm on vacation I take an FX body with me, when going alone and taking photos is a main reason and I'm not limited by time. Otherwise, I travel light and have an old Canon G11 with me. It's swivel screen and "optical viewfinder" help me a lot. The optical viewfinder is a joke, but looking on a display in bright sunlight is also a joke - a worse one, too.

 

The already mentioned 17-70 Sigma or the 16-85 would also be my input. The Sigma I don't know, the Nikkor performs well, it's non-turning focusring is an advantage to the Sigma, plus the larger range. Other side, Sigma has Macro and is faster and has a more modern vibration reduction. Although I would not dare to compare those. Today I would go for the Sigma, although I don't think it is very important to adjust it by the USB-dock. But it's a nice feature and on the long end it's nearly one stop faster than the Nikkor. For some reason I stay away from superzooms as well as kit-lenses from Nikon but that is not fact-based.

[Brightcolours]

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is a nicer lens than the Tamron you mention. It is better built, gives a bit better results,has a nicer focus motor. It is a bit more expensive and heavy. A very nice lens. The Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 DX is a nice lens too, but heavier and bigger, and quite a bit more expensive without offering VR.

 

Then there is the new Sigma 17-70mm "C", offering a bigger reach and having nice optics as well. 

[stoppingdown]

The Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, in spite of being a kit lens, has got some good quality in being very sharp (you might want to look at a very favourable review by Thom Hogan; Thom also evaluates the 18-105mm, if I'm not wrong, so you can compare them). It also sports a "quasi" fixed aperture around f/4. The AF-S 16-85mm, on the other hand, has got the advantage of featuring stabilisation and on paper it should be sharper; but I think not at the level of the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 (I own the 18-70 and the 35, not the 16-85).

 

I've been using the 18-70 for one year now, mounted mostly on my D5100; I've favoured it over the 16-85mm because it's cheaper and it fits better the role of travel lens in the sense that I'd scream less loud should they steal it ;-) Also, my experience with a lens in the role of travel lens is that I'm often in a hurry and in this circumstance I am the sharpness limitation, not the lens (at least at the 18-70mm quality). OTOH, if I have time to mount a tripod, I'd probably use a prime.

 

Now I'm probably abandoning it as I'm evaluating to switch the landscape/travel stuff to Sony, thus changing the overall evaluation, but this is another story.

[mckay wedding photography]

I used a sigma 18-200mm many years ago. Image quality fairly poor but going from wide to zoom you cant beat it's range for being so versatile.

[djsperry]

The 16-85 on my D90 is my standard walk-around setup. I occasionally put the 12-24mm in my pocket, but I don't use it often. Depending on where I am, I might have my Canon S100 in a belt holster too.

 

The advantage of the 18-105 is that it's lighter than the 16-85. But the 16-85 is better built, so I don't worry about it much. The D90/16-85 is not a lightweight setup.

[JJ_SO]

I'm not a big fan of superzoom. But I became a fan of Sigma. Now they put a new 18-200 into their contemporary line. It has to have some weaknesses, I guess, otherwise other lensmakers wouldn't understand their job. But I believe (and am looking forward to some tests, though), they learnt a lot in their new quality rule "100% controlled". Of course, quality has to be made, not to be done by controlling enough samples to find a good one. But I think, since they test each lens they can react earlier to production problems.

 

So' I recommend - not the lens because I don't know it, but wait until you can try one and do some test shots with it.

 

On the other side: Flickstah, you're talking of a zoom range from 10-105 and one prime lens in between. Is it the long end or the wide end you're taking most pictures? If it's the wide, I vote for brightcolours recommendation: Sigma 17-50/2.8

 

I had that as first lens on my new D7000 4 years ago and it's a great glass!