Walk around lens for DX Nikon slightly longer than my 17-50mm f/2.8?

DaveAndHolly219 · Mar 25, 2017

I shoot a Nikon D90 (I know it's old but I still love it) and my primary walk around lens is a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. It is a wonderful lens, but it lacks a bit of reach in some of the places I like to go shoot.

I'm looking to supplement it with a walk around zoom with slightly more reach. I would consider a prime as well, but for a walk around lens I do like the convenience a zoom offers.

I have a Nikon 18-105mm and a 55-200mm but I'm not much of a fan of the build quality or IQ of either. I'd like something at least at the same level as my Sigma 17-50mm quality wise.

Budget is around $400-500. I would probably buy used to get the best glass possible for the money.

Suggestions?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pixmedic · Mar 25, 2017

on a budget, tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (also a FX lens if you upgrade later) i owned this lens and loved it. (~$300 used)
alternatively, you can spend a little more money and get a tamron or sigma 24-70 f/2.8 with VR. (within your budget used)

Derrel · Mar 25, 2017

Nikon's 16-80mm f/2.8~4 AF-S DX VR zoom is going to be the next step up in quality, and the price is not cheap. So, that lens is probably eliminated by budget restraints at this time. Here's a review. Nikon 16-80mm VR Review

The earlier 16-85mm lens might also be an option,and I think (not sure) you might be able to get a used one in your price range.

You're in a tough spot as to more range than the 18-105 and better quality than the 17-50...combined with the $400-$500 budget AND the need to have it be a zoom lens.

DaveAndHolly219 · Mar 25, 2017

Derrel said:
Nikon's 16-80mm f/2.8~4 AF-S DX VR zoom is going to be the next step up in quality, and the price is not cheap. So, that lens is probably eliminated by budget restraints at this time. Here's a review. Nikon 16-80mm VR Review

The earlier 16-85mm lens might also be an option,and I think (not sure) you might be able to get a used one in your price range.

You're in a tough spot as to more range than the 18-105 and better quality than the 17-50...combined with the $400-$500 budget AND the need to have it be a zoom lens.

Don't need more range than the 18-105. As a matter of fact, if that lens was sharper, it would be perfect.

I also don't HAVE to have a zoom. I'd definitely be into the right prime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Derrel · Mar 25, 2017

Yeah, I had an 18-105 back in the DX days when it was a relatively new lens, but it has continually been expanded, first to the 18-135VR, and now 18-140VR...you know,I had FORGOTTEN the 28-200mm model, the AF-S one from the early 2000's...I had that with the D70 and the D2x early on...it has the range, and the mid-zone is pretty good. It's available affordably used. The 24-85mm f/3.3~4.5 AF-S (2001 intro?) is relatively good.

The best thing is the D90 has lowish MP count, so it is not uber-critical to have the best glass, the way it is on the newesrt 24-MP DX Nikons. I LIKED the 28-200 as a one-lens, weekender type zoom. The 24-85 AF-S was decent too.

12MP DX is a sort of sweet spot for moderate to average glass: it's not super-demanding of the best-in-class type lenses.

goodguy · Mar 26, 2017

Another option is Nikon 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 VR

greybeard · Mar 26, 2017

Sigma made a 17-70 2.8-4.5 but now it is discontinued.

Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

sparelink · Mar 26, 2017

greybeard said:
Sigma made a 17-70 2.8-4.5 but now it is discontinued.

They still make it, now a contemporary version.

I have a Nikon version for sale with minimal use if anyone is interested.

DaveAndHolly219 · Mar 26, 2017

sparelink said:
greybeard said:

Sigma made a 17-70 2.8-4.5 but now it is discontinued.

Click to expand...

They still make it, now a contemporary version.

I have a Nikon version for sale with minimal use if anyone is interested.

I am.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sparelink · Mar 27, 2017

DaveAndHolly219 said:
sparelink said:

greybeard said:

Sigma made a 17-70 2.8-4.5 but now it is discontinued.

Click to expand...

They still make it, now a contemporary version.

I have a Nikon version for sale with minimal use if anyone is interested.

Click to expand...

I am.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PM sent

astroNikon · Mar 28, 2017

Your D90 will drive the old 28-85/105 lenses which were sharp, screw driven, and inexpensive.
Look at the old AF-D lenses for small, lightweight, inexpensive and high IQ especially for the smaller MP sensors.

I used to have a 70-300/AF lens that was sharp until I went to a higher MP sensor, then the images went to mush. So be aware of that if you ever upgrade your body of that possibly happening, though the 28-85/105s were still good IQ on my modern bodies when we had one for the Lens Across America project.

greybeard · Mar 28, 2017

Back in the day of the D300, the go to walk around was a 16-85 3.5-5.6. They are top quality mechanicals with metal mount and heavy plastic. Very solid feeling. They are a bit long in the tooth for todays 24mp sensors but, one of these should match up quite nicely with your 12mp D90.

goooner · Mar 28, 2017

I know you don't want longer than the 105, but my 18-140 is very sharp, and has a metal mount.

DaveAndHolly219 · Mar 28, 2017

Sooooo I came across this interesting 35-105mm Nikon. Appears to be a well-built decent lens at a decent price. Push/pull zoom may take some getting used to, but that's no big deal.

Thoughts?

Nikon 35-105mm F/3.5-4.5 AF-D Lens *52

pixmedic · Mar 28, 2017

DaveAndHolly219 said:
Sooooo I came across this interesting 35-105mm Nikon. Appears to be a well-built decent lens at a decent price. Push/pull zoom may take some getting used to, but that's no big deal.

Thoughts?

Nikon 35-105mm F/3.5-4.5 AF-D Lens *52

its an older lens. not bad though, for the money.
the newer nikon 18-105 VRII is a better lens.
maybe you could consider an older 70-200?

the first gen tamron and sigma offering are pretty inexpensive now. Tokina also makes one.