A good all-around lens?

[brianhuangbh]

I just got a D7000, and I'm looking for a lens I can use for just about anything. I would prefer some fast glass, preferably f/2.8. Would you guys recommend something for me under $1000? I wouldn't mind if it was used. I know a good lens is the 24-70 f/2.8 but I just can't afford it. I'm using a 17-35mm right now, and I got it recently for just $900. Should I switch it out or just keep using my 17-35 and just crop if I need it? Thanks

 

[jritz]

Well the 24-70 to me is the holy grail of lenses, Next to the 70-200. If your looking for a similar lens at a cheaper price, sigma has a fairly comparable 24-70 for around 900 Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens 571306 B&H Photo. You may also look into the nikon 17-55 which is a great lens, but keep in mind if you ever go full frame you wont be able to use it because it is only a dx lens.

 

[KmH]

A good all-around lens?

Is an oxymoron.

The focal length ranges you're asking about aren't really "all-around".

I recommend a 3 lens suite of mid-range glass to cover "all-around":

• Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens
• Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
• Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

 

[brianhuangbh]

Ehh, I started out with the Sigma 12-24 and ever since I got my hands on some quality glass, I won't ever be able to go back to sigma =/

 

[KmH]

I'm sure glad I recommened all Nikon glass then.

 

[brianhuangbh]

I just looked at the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8G lens. I noticed that it goes for around 1,000. Should I get that instead? It has more range and is newer than the 17-35 right now, and is just as wide. I know it might have I little more distortion, but I think that the increased focal range and newer lens makes up for it? What do you guys think? Sell my 17-35 for a 17-55 or just keep my 17-35? Thanks!
Also, for all those people who have the 17-55, does it have weather seals? Thanks!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Ehh, I started out with the Sigma 12-24 and ever since I got my hands on some quality glass, I won't ever be able to go back to sigma =/

That's not one of sigma's best..If you started out with something like their 70mm or 150mm macro's, you'd think they're the best lens designer in the world.

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

what do you shoot primarily? I wish there was a BEST all around lens...if there was I wouldnt have over $8000 i lenses....

 

[kylehess10]

For me, I love Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. I've compared it to a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and I seriously didn't see too much of a difference, and I paid only $280 for mine. It's SHARP, and my "every day" type of lens. I know it's crazy saying that this $300 Tamron lens is as good as Nikon's $1000+ lens but I did compare both at the same time and it's simply worth the price.

 

[tyler_h]

Any consideration towards 2-3 fast primes for cheap?
Not sure exactly on Nikon lenses and all the business with compatibility but a fast 35, a fast 50 and keep your 17-35 for something wider. This all depends what you shoot though... a good all-around lens for a portrait photographer would be a 70-200 while if you do landscapes...

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

www.keh.com has a Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S lenses for right around $1,000. Keh is very reputable.

However I might suggest you even go for a Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D (around $500 at KEH) and a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D lenses (around $700 -800 at KEH). With the 80-200 get the 2 ring version (version that is still in production). This would be a couple hundred more than you $1,000. But you get very good Nikon glass for short money. No, they don't focus as fast as the newer lenses with motors in them. But they are both very fine lenses. Unless your doing very fast action sports AF speed should not be an issue with them. They are not super slow, just not as fast as the newer stuff. And they are in line to compliment your current 17-35. I have the 35-70 and 80-200 and still use them all the time.

 

[Ub3rdoRK]

WHy not just get a 28-300? its a great "all around lens". When you get into details....each lens has its reasons for being the best....it all boils down to what you do. If you shoot people..50+ on a apsc sensor...of you shoot landscapes...get IMO wide as you can go...like the tokina 11-16 (great price) and if you need everything in one....your going to sacrifice either distortion or have to be ƒ3.5....or spend a ton of money on a wide variety of lenses, then your back to what your asking. That 28-300 is an excellent "all around" lens. its nice and light too. for about $800 ive seen on amazon/ebay.

 

[djacobox372]

The older nikon 35-70mm f2.8 af-d is a less expensive option. Optics are quite good, the only knock on this lens is it not being sealed very well, so I wouldn't use it in wet conditions.

Then there's the sigma 24-70mm f2.8, which I use. Sharpness is about the same as the nikon, but contrast and field flatness isn't as good.

You may also consider a set of primes, a 50mm prime might be all you need to fill the gap between your 17-35mm and a 70-200mm f2.8

 

[Light Artisan]

If you want all around, pick up a Nikon P7000. It's smaller, lighter, and less expensive.