Next Nikon/3rd party lens

[jeytee]

Hey guys I currently have a 35mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8 and a Nikon d7100. Im thinking of getting a sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for a general all purpose walk around lens for a trip to Asia. You think that's a good next step? I'm on a tight budget though so cheaper options are important but I'm willing to spend a couple hundred more if there is a much better option available. Thanks!

 

[Jeff15]

For a walkabout lens I would look for more focal length than 50mm...

 

[SG8]

I've heard great things about an 18-105 or an 18-140 lens.

Nikon Nikkor 18-140mm F/3.5-5.6 G Aspherical ED IF DX AF-S VR Autofocus Lens For APS-C Sensor DSLRS {67}

Nikon Nikkor 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6 G Aspherical ED IF DX AF-S VR Autofocus Lens For APS-C Sensor DSLRS {67}

 

[jaomul]

I'd agree with the 18-105 or 18-140, good cover for a day out

 

[dunfly]

I have a d5200 and a d7200. For me the Nikkor 18-140 is the must have walk around lens. I would guess 80% of my photos are taken with this lens. There are some Nikon refurbished ones available at a ridiculously low price.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens 2213B B&H

 

[ac12]

IMHO, the 17-50 is too short on the long end for use as a GP lens. You would need to carry a 2nd lens to give you the longer telephoto coverage.
In the FF world, the 24-70 + 70-200 was a paired set of lenses.
The FF GP lens is the Nikon 24-120 or Canon 24-105.
The old 35mm film GP was 35-105, then 28-105.
Notice that the long end of the FF/film GP lenses are above 100mm.

In my mind a GP lens has to accommodate a wide range of subjects from close to far, small to big, and everything in between. So it needs to cover from moderate wide to moderate tele.

There are two trade-offs.

1. As the zoom range increases, the image quality generally decreases.
   I say generally, because with technology thing change, and quality improves. The common super zooms of today was a SciFi lens of yesteryear.
2. As the zoom range increases, the lens gets larger and heavier.
   One thing to remember about this is, you are carrying that lens all the time. With a smaller lens, the longer tele zoom could be at home or in the bag, and reducing the weight you are carrying. I don't need to carry 300 or 400mm of lens all the time.

Today, my standard recommended GP lens is the Nikon 18-140, or Canon 18-135.
That is a single lens that can likely do 90% of what you want.

My Nikon alternates to the 18-140 are:

• 18-105 VR. I think the 18-140 replaced this lens.
  
• 18-70. This lens does not have VR, which is a major negative today. This is an older smaller lens which I use when I don't want to carry the bulk of the 18-140. This is about as short on the long end as I would consider for a GP lens.

However, GP lenses are generally slow. So if you shoot in low light, you need a companion lens for indoor low light situations.
I have and use the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX.
Canon unfortunately does not have a crop 35mm lens. You either get the more expensive FF 35 or the Yongnuo 35.

 

[jeytee]

IMHO, the 17-50 is too short on the long end for use as a GP lens. You would need to carry a 2nd lens to give you the longer telephoto coverage.
In the FF world, the 24-70 + 70-200 was a paired set of lenses.
The FF GP lens is the Nikon 24-120 or Canon 24-105.
The old 35mm film GP was 35-105, then 28-105.
Notice that the long end of the FF/film GP lenses are above 100mm.

In my mind a GP lens has to accommodate a wide range of subjects from close to far, small to big, and everything in between. So it needs to cover from moderate wide to moderate tele.

There are two trade-offs.

1. As the zoom range increases, the image quality generally decreases.
   I say generally, because with technology thing change, and quality improves. The common super zooms of today was a SciFi lens of yesteryear.
2. As the zoom range increases, the lens gets larger and heavier.
   One thing to remember about this is, you are carrying that lens all the time. With a smaller lens, the longer tele zoom could be at home or in the bag, and reducing the weight you are carrying. I don't need to carry 300 or 400mm of lens all the time.

Today, my standard recommended GP lens is the Nikon 18-140, or Canon 18-135.
That is a single lens that can likely do 90% of what you want.

My Nikon alternates to the 18-140 are:

• 18-105 VR. I think the 18-140 replaced this lens.
  
• 18-70. This lens does not have VR, which is a major negative today. This is an older smaller lens which I use when I don't want to carry the bulk of the 18-140. This is about as short on the long end as I would consider for a GP lens.

However, GP lenses are generally slow. So if you shoot in low light, you need a companion lens for indoor low light situations.
I have and use the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX.
Canon unfortunately does not have a crop 35mm lens. You either get the more expensive FF 35 or the Yongnuo 35.

Thank you for the detailed explanation! This is a really late reply haha

 

[greybeard]

My walk around zoom on crop frame is a 16-85 3.5-5.6. It covers everything from wide angle landscapes to portraiture. Works for me.

 

[sj-gordon]

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 is an outstanding lens. Great color, bokah, and sharp as a tack... but it is a bit on the short side for a single lens walk-around on a trip. I had/have one for the ol' D7000 and then the D7200 and probably 75% of my photos were taken with that exact lens, but for a trip I would want one a bit longer on the upper end.

 

[greybeard]

I have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 that I use as a walk around with my D7500. It is pretty sharp even at f/2.8. I also have a 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 nikkor which is just as good and with more reach but slower. Nikon is now offering a 16-80 f/2.8-f/4 for around 1K. Also the entry level kit 18-140 gets good reviews.

 

[ac12]

I have the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 that I use as a walk around with my D7500. It is pretty sharp even at f/2.8. I also have a 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 nikkor which is just as good and with more reach but slower. Nikon is now offering a 16-80 f/2.8-f/4 for around 1K. Also the entry level kit 18-140 gets good reviews.

I have the 18-140, but that 16-80 f/2.8-4 is reallllly tempting me.
The 18-140 is a great lens, when the light is not dim.
It is the speed of the 16-80 that attracts me. But that $1k price . . . ouch.