Walk around all-in-one zoom for travel (DX)

[Peeb]

Recommendations? Shooting a crop body Nikon.

I could get a tamron 18-200 for $200 and just call it good. The ONLY use intended is travel, when I can't stop and be more deliberate.

Is it worth it (in your opinion) to spend more?

 

[jaomul]

What have you already got,?

 

[Peeb]

What have you already got,?

35mm f/1.8
55-300 f/3.5-5.6

Actually had two 18-55 kit lenses but gave both away to family members recently.

 

[SCraig]

I got the Sigma 18-300 a couple of months ago for that same reason, and while I haven't used it a great deal it does a pretty good job. Not as sharp as my other lenses, as would be expected, but I'm pretty pleased with it overall.

 

[jaomul]

I think the 18-105 Nikon kit lens is great, and it's focal length makes it very flexible. I'd go for that over a tamron 18-200. Don't know to much about the sigma 18-300 s Craig mentioned, but if he says it's good it could be a winner, that's some amount of range

 

[Peeb]

I think the 18-105 Nikon kit lens is great, and it's focal length makes it very flexible. I'd go for that over a tamron 18-200. Don't know to much about the sigma 18-300 s Craig mentioned, but if he says it's good it could be a winner, that's some amount of range

That reminds me that the 18-140 is well regarded as well.

 

[jaomul]

The 18-140 is well regarded, has more zoom and a metal mount. These are all good things but it does make it rather expensive. You can pick up the 18-105 second hand very cheap, it's a good bargain if you find a well cared for model.

If you can get an 18-140 in your budget I'd jump at it

 

[Peeb]

I got the Sigma 18-300 a couple of months ago for that same reason, and while I haven't used it a great deal it does a pretty good job. Not as sharp as my other lenses, as would be expected, but I'm pretty pleased with it overall.

I remember that thread now! Yeah, it's a definite compromise but sometimes as necessary one, as you well know.

 

[Peeb]

The 18-140 is well regarded, has more zoom and a metal mount. These are all good things but it does make it rather expensive. You can pick up the 18-105 second hand very cheap, it's a good bargain if you find a well cared for model.

If you can get an 18-140 in your budget I'd jump at it

Actually, if I spring for one of those, the optics are good enough that it would see more use than just for travel, I expect.

 

[Braineack]

I could get a tamron 18-200 for $200 and just call it good. The ONLY use intended is travel, when I can't stop and be more deliberate.

Is it worth it (in your opinion) to spend more?

Well if you don't need VR, the 18-135mm can be had for $115.

Nikon Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Autofocus Zoom Lens

 

[DB_Cro]

I'd be all over the 17-50 2.8 (either Sigma or Tamron) but I can understand if someone wants more range in
the same lens. That's (Tamron VC) what I use when I go "somewhere" and don't intend to shoot much.

 

[PropilotBW]

While it's not an "all-in-one" it's definitely an excellent travel lens. My recommendation would be the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary lens. I used it as my travel lens. The 17 was plenty wide, and 70 was enough of a zoom that I could crop if I wanted a bit tighter. The 17-70 is excellent and is very sharp, and at f/2.8-4, much faster than any of the 18-200 options. Somebody recommended the 17-50, which is an excellent lens, I just think the extra 20mm of zoom makes it a better option.

Since you don't have anything at this lower end of the focal range, it makes perfect sense. What I don't think makes sense is to get an 18-200, sacrifice optical quality on the long end, only to already have a lens covering that longer length (in your 55-300).

 

[DB_Cro]

While it's not an "all-in-one" it's definitely an excellent travel lens. My recommendation would be the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary lens. I used it as my travel lens. The 17 was plenty wide, and 70 was enough of a zoom that I could crop if I wanted a bit tighter. The 17-70 is excellent and is very sharp, and at f/2.8-4, much faster than any of the 18-200 options. Somebody recommended the 17-50, which is an excellent lens, I just think the extra 20mm of zoom makes it a better option.

Since you don't have anything at this lower end of the focal range, it makes perfect sense. What I don't think makes sense is to get an 18-200, sacrifice optical quality on the long end, only to already have a lens covering that longer length (in your 55-300).

Yeah, the 17-70 is probably a better choice then the 17-50 that I recommended but only in this very case.

I guess a lot of people could live with an entry level dSLR and the 17-70 without the need to ever change
anything. The new Nikon aps-c stuff is great, you could do even some serious stuff with that combo.

 

[PropilotBW]

Just wanted to share. Here are some sample shots I took using the Sigma 17-70 Contemporary on a Nikon D5100. It is just a great all-around travel lens that can cover landscape to portraits. It is a very good value for the money!

 

[jaomul]

Some cool colourful photos propilotBW