DX Mid range zoom

[0ptics]

Hey guys

I plan to do a lot of backpacking and hiking this coming summer so I definitely want to capture some amazing landscapes! My current gear is the Nikon D7100, 35mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 12-24 f/4, and the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (All Nikon glass); I plan to bring my wide angle (12-24mm) lens for sure and considering the 35mm, but am leaning towards purchasing a mid range zoom.

I'm looking for a mid range zoom that accompanys my 12-24mm. With this mid range zoom I plan to use it as my walk around lens for my hikes; if I see an amazing scenery, zoom out wide for a good landscape shot. If I want a good picture of my fellow hikers, flowers, bugs, dogs, etc. I can zoom in and shoot at a fast aperture for bokeh and shallow DOF. Also, if it is a fast aperture lens (eg. 2.8 on the widest focal length), I plan to use it for astrophotography. I plan to switch to my 12-24mm when this mid range lens is not wide enough. So basically looking for a lens that allows me to have a decently wide focal length so I do not have to waste time switching to my 12-24mm as well as a good focal length for people/planets/bokeh pictures.

I was looking at the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8; it seems promising and got amazing reviews (seems like theres some good conditioned 17-55mm for around $800-900 on Amazon). But, I also read a good amount of reviews saying how this lens is probably better as an "event" lens rather than a walkaround/landscape lens (to me I believe 17mm on a DX is pretty wide). My other concern is its sharpness, many people say its TACK SHARP, but others say it is pretty soft even at f/8 and f/11 throughout all focal lengths. When I purchased my 12-24mm there were a lot of reviews saying how this lens was also TACK SHARP, but to me its decent when it comes to this aspect. I love my 12-24mm mainly for the focal length and the used price I got it for, BUT not very sharp, espicially near the borders; very soft :/...I know sharpness is not the only reason someone would buy this lens (its build quality is great, 2.8, etc.) , but I don't know if I want to spend the money if the optical quality is similar to my 12-24mm or the kit lens (though the kit lens is very good for its price!!).

I was also looking at the Sigma ART lens 18-35mm f/1.8, need to do more research but heard its amazing! If it when to 50mm I would definitely get this, but 35mm is pretty satisfying. but it seems to be backordered.

I heard the 17-50mm f/2.8 Sigma and Tamrom are great for their price, but many mixed reviews on these. And I think I still prefer the Nikon 17-55mm (my inner "Nikon fanboy" is coming out :S...), BUT still open to these alternatives.

I know Nikon has the 17-35mm f/2.8, but I think I'd prefer the Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8.

I know there are many other mid range zoom lens, but I prefer a fast aperture lenses. Maybe I'm asking for too much in a lens (I have the 24-70mm 2.8, but going to return it since its way out of my price range, even for a used one). Would love to hear your guys' suggestions on which lens I should choose or to just stick with what I have!

0ptics

 

[jaomul]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, really like it but 17 is plenty wide for me. I don't think the Nikon is much better image wise but is built like a tank. Then there is the Nikon 16-85mm which is highly recommended but not f2.8

 

[0ptics]

Ya I heard the 17-50mm f/2.8 is good BUT there's many reviews that says how it has "front-focusing" problem which to me is a huge turn off :/...The 16-85mm to me is just an upgraded kit lens, not saying the 18-55mm is bad (bang for its buck!!), but I believe that its aimed for a convenient rather than producing sharp pictures.

If anyone has any other suggestions or information of the 17-55mm f/2.8, please do post

 

[Patrice]

Get the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and stop worrying and stop reading reviews. It's a solid performer and well made and, like all lenses, once you know what it can and cannot do, you'll be more than happy with that lens. I had one for years - sold it for 28-70/2.8 when I went FX.

Were I to get another DX body that would be my default lens for it.

 

[colnago1331]

Look at the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S. It's $629 on Amazon and from what I've heard it's a great DX lens.

 

[kundalini]

Before plopping down a few Benjamin's for an unknown, spend a few smackaroos instead for a test drive.

LensRentals.com - Rent Nikon > Lenses > Normal Range

 

[sifelaver]

for travel check out the new collapsible 18-55. every ounce counts while backpacking and while i love the 17-55 it's heavy. new 18-55 is lighter than a 50mm prime.

 

[PaulWog]

In the normal range zoom category, I think optical stabilization comes in handy a fair bit. The fastest you can shoot at is f2.8 in low light. The low light performance of the D7100 is very good, but the reason why a 24-70 without optical stabilization works a bit better on full frame is because you can get away with a couple more stops of ISO increase.