I need a new lens for primarily walking around but also good at landscapes. Ideally something as wide as 17mm or there abouts. I have a Nikon D90. My budget is about £300/$500. Any help would be great!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ideal lens for landscapes/walkaround
- Thread starter whodareswins
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nburwell
macrumors 603
I shoot with Canon, so you'll have to forgive me for not being too familiar with Nikon lenses. What lens or lenses do you currently own?
With your price point, you have a few (yet limited) options available to you. Also, you have to consider that since your D90 is not FF, even 17mm isn't truly that focal length on your body. With that said, I would consider looking at the 18-105 lens which is listed on Nikon's web site for $399. If you wanted to spend a little more money, you could go with the 18-35mm, but the MSRP on that is $669. Around the same price point is the 24-120mm and 16-85mm. But again, you don't have a ton of options around the price point you're looking to spend.
With your price point, you have a few (yet limited) options available to you. Also, you have to consider that since your D90 is not FF, even 17mm isn't truly that focal length on your body. With that said, I would consider looking at the 18-105 lens which is listed on Nikon's web site for $399. If you wanted to spend a little more money, you could go with the 18-35mm, but the MSRP on that is $669. Around the same price point is the 24-120mm and 16-85mm. But again, you don't have a ton of options around the price point you're looking to spend.
Thanks for the help. I have a Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime and a 55-200mm VR. I have since sold my 18-55mm kit lens to fund my next lens. I have seen the Tamron 17-50mm non VC get good reviews. But the non VC one doesnt seem that common.
http://www.adorama.com/TM1750NKAF.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html
The 16-85mm VR is also a good choice.
Artful Dodger
macrumors 68020
I am actually looking for the exact same kind of lens. So far, with relatively the same budget as you, I have been considering getting the Nikon 18-200mm VR (NOT VR II) at a used or refurbished price. It doesn't reach the 17mm that you are looking for, but seems to be quite close. I, personally, am worried about the zoom creep of the 18-200mm VR. I'd like to use one before making the jump.
JDDavis
macrumors 65816
I'd say I'm a 18-200 VR power user. It's been my main lens since I bought my D90 a few years ago. I have taken several thousand photos with it. For the cost it's a very versatile lens. I've taken all types of photos with it and have been very pleased and would say it was well worth the money.
Now...it's not a pro lens. You should not expect pro results unless you are paying for a pro lens. The 18-200 is a very good all around lens. The VR version does have the lens creep issue. I've dealt with it. Some times I even used it to my advantage when shooting climbing shots down a pitch. It's like an auto zoom. I find the general "sweet spot" of my lens is between 35 and 120mm. That's where I seem to be most pleased with the photos. It's seems to perform better at 18mm than 200mm. There is softness at 18 but it's not too bad. Mine gets pretty soft on the edges at 200. I generally end up cropping the shots at 200mm depending on what's in the scene. In good light crops are not a problem at 200 (though you aren't going to blow these shots up huge).
So the 18-200 is not perfect from 18-200. You shouldn't expect it to be. If it could you'd see a pro lens with that kind of range. For what it is though it performs very well. I'm no pro but I've been happy with it. It's taken a lot of abuse and still takes good shots. 90% of the pictures in the link in my signature were taken with it. I plan to buy the 24-70 and the 70-200 one day but I'll always keep a version of the 18-200. It's great being able to go out with just one lens and make just about everything work.
Now...it's not a pro lens. You should not expect pro results unless you are paying for a pro lens. The 18-200 is a very good all around lens. The VR version does have the lens creep issue. I've dealt with it. Some times I even used it to my advantage when shooting climbing shots down a pitch. It's like an auto zoom. I find the general "sweet spot" of my lens is between 35 and 120mm. That's where I seem to be most pleased with the photos. It's seems to perform better at 18mm than 200mm. There is softness at 18 but it's not too bad. Mine gets pretty soft on the edges at 200. I generally end up cropping the shots at 200mm depending on what's in the scene. In good light crops are not a problem at 200 (though you aren't going to blow these shots up huge).
So the 18-200 is not perfect from 18-200. You shouldn't expect it to be. If it could you'd see a pro lens with that kind of range. For what it is though it performs very well. I'm no pro but I've been happy with it. It's taken a lot of abuse and still takes good shots. 90% of the pictures in the link in my signature were taken with it. I plan to buy the 24-70 and the 70-200 one day but I'll always keep a version of the 18-200. It's great being able to go out with just one lens and make just about everything work.