Favorite walk around lens for NIKON under $500??

Personally I prefer a prime - I keep a 50mm on my Leica and my FM at all times. On my D7000 walking around, I have the 35 1.8 about 50% of the time and the 28-80 the other 50% of the time. You'll notice some CA on the 35mm though, but it is easily correctable.
 
I've used the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 quite a bit and all in all it's a lot better than its' price would reflect. I think they are $200 new and $100 used. For a little more you can get a 18-105 used for probably $250.00 and $350.00 new. Both do a descent job if you can deal with the speed and plastic mount.
 
You know, on my girlfriends D5100, she uses the 18-55 kit way more than I expected. Per lots, and lots of recommendations, she got the 50mm 1.8, and it's just not wide enough for a lot of what we like to do. It feels like it should be the other way around, it seems like so many reviews and pointers (not particularly from here) say "buy the 50 and ditch the kit, it's garbage." I wish I would have known in the advance. I think the next plan is to try the 35mm and see if that fixes things. I think I read somewhere that a 35 on DX is much closer to 50 on FX, which is what I primarily use on my 35mm camera.
 
Last edited:
For me: Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G (I have a crop sensor so that is probably why I prefer that to my 50mm)


You know, on my girlfriends D5100, she uses the 18-55 kit way more than I expected. Per lots, and lots of recommendations, she got the 50mm 1.8, and it's just not wide enough for a lot of what we like to do. It feels like it should be the other way around, it seems like so many reviews and pointers (not particularly from her) say "buy the 50 and ditch the kit, it's garbage." I wish I would have known in the advance. I think the next plan is to try the 35mm and see if that fixes things. I think I read somewhere that a 35 on DX is much closer to 50 on FX, which is what I primarily use on my 35mm camera.

Well, I bought the prime lenses and ditched the kit, but I have had Nikon's 18-55mm in the past and it is a great lens for a lot of people, especially people that are new to SLR's. It is cheap and it does a pretty good job.

And yes the 35mm on a DX is equivalent to 52.5mm on an FX.
 
On a DX camera the 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 pretty hard to beat.
Zoomin I use the Kit 18-105 on my DX camera and the old 28-105 AF d on my FX camera.
The old badmouthed 24-120 AF d f3.5 - 5.6 I also us a lot.
I got a cherry one (my second one of these) used for around $160.00

Sorry hard to give just one lens, depends on where I'm walking around.

Mike
 
I went on a photowalk around downtown Raleigh about a month ago and the lens that stayed on my D7000 the most was my Tokina 12-24mm f/4. It's the FX equivalent of an 18-36mm and has a minimum focus distance of just 10 or 11 inches. It was perfect for shooting tall buildings and in tight alleyways. The version without the internal focus motor is just $400 at Amazon, Adorama, or most other places. Add $50 for the version with the focusing motor.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that or the sigma 10-20 is on my list for my nexxt lens :)
 
For the D7000 I have gone from the kit lenses to the 18-200, which I really liked. Then when the 18-300 came along I couldn't resist it. Sharper than the 18-200 also.

For the D800 I carry the 24-300, OK, but not quite as crisp as the 18-300 and really doesn't take advantage of those 36 Mpix. If my 24-70 had VR, it would be on it all the time.
 
Indoors / outdoors... 50mm 1.8

primarily outdoors... 70-300 AF-S VR (available used for under $400... and a GREAT lens for the money! Plus you can use it FX, if you every upgrade! DX Lenses only work on DX)
 
Yeah I've heard a lot about the 18-300's and 70-300's, I had a tamron 70-300 and didn't like it much
 
I'm considering the 16-85 Nikon as my new walk around. They are on sale till March. Any input
 
Yeah, that is very similar to the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, and Tokina 12-24. SO many choices! lol
 
50mm is my low-budget/smallest lens in the sack.

SWP_0069.jpg


:lol: ^^^
 

Most reactions

Back
Top