Best multipurpose lens for $1000 ??

[LizardKing]

Hello there

I was thinking of buying this 28-300. But I'm not too sure if it's the best way to go anymore

I'm buying a D7000, 50mm f/1.4G and SB-700... But I still need a multipurpose lens.
I like outdoors photography, mostly. And I don't mean only nature and wildlife. I mean "out of the door of the house" jaja... anywhere from small villages, to cities, farms, parks, hiking trails...

Recently, I had the chance to shoot for an entire weekend with a Canon 7D with kit lens 18-135mm... And I hated those 135mm... I tend to like tight compositions, and sometimes you just can't get close enough.
I guess I'm trying to say that those 300mm (450mm +- in the D7000) are valuable to me.

In addition, the construction, materials and optics seem pretty good. It's an FX lens, has VR, AF-S, etc., and actually saw LOTS of great reviews.

Anyway... What would YOU do if you were buying all this gear? Which multipurpose lens would you buy with $1000?

Thank you all in advance!

Regards,
LizardKing

 

[mnhoj]

For me, the 28-300 isn't wide enough on a D7000. I prefer the 18-200.

The difference between 200mm and 300mm isn't that great. Although the 28-300 will probably perform better than the 18-200 at 150-200mm. The center focal ranges of a zoom usually do.

If you take a look at this tool from Tamron it may give you a better idea.
Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

And adding another 2 cents to my other worthless 2 cents, I prefer something like a 16-85 and 70-300 to an 18-200. All in ones are very convenient but are lacking for me when it comes to minor details.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

For me, the 28-300 isn't wide enough on a D7000. I prefer the 18-200.

The difference between 200mm and 300mm isn't that great. Although the 28-300 will probably perform better than the 18-200 at 150-200mm. The center focal ranges of a zoom usually do.

If you take a look at this tool from Tamron it may give you a better idea.
Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

And adding another 2 cents to my other worthless 2 cents, I prefer something like a 16-85 and 70-300 to an 18-200. All in ones are very convenient but are lacking for me when it comes to minor details.

+1 lacking in sharpness too

 

[whiplash23]

I love my Nikkor 24-85mm. It is a variable aperture, f2.8 at 24mm and f4 most everywhere else. The lens is tack sharp (hard to tell the difference between that one and my 50mm f1.8) and hasn't left my camera since I bought it.

 

[LizardKing]

Thank you all for your feedback, guys!

24-85mm and 70-300mm seem like a nice combination to replace the 28-300... Now, I have no doubts about 24-85, but what about 70-300mm? anyone has it or know something about it?
I'll go find some reviews, but I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

[mnhoj]

The 70-300VR is very good. I've never tried the 24-85 but have no doubt it's a good lens. I still prefer wider on the DX platform. A 16-85VR, Sigma 17-70OS, or Tamron 17-50 is what I'd pair it with.

 

[LizardKing]

So... To be sure... You're saying the 70-300 is better than the 28-300? Despite the focal lenght... are you saying the overall quality is better?

 

[BlairWright]

I actually like the 28-300. I have pretty much every pro Nikon lens south of the 300 2.8 and the 28-300 can stand it's own (at least on FX). The only downside is some vignetting below f4 but that can be removed in PP

Really, it's a great lens. Not that I'm a big fan of Ken Rockwell (because he accounts for price in his reviews) but he's a big fan of this lens and so is Moose Peterson.

I do not have the 18-200 so I really can't comment on it but if I had to choose a good lens for around a grand it would be the 28-300. I would also consider a used 80-200 2.8 for that money, you may lose VR but you gain allot by having a 2.8 lens in your tool bag.