Ideal lens for landscapes/walkaround

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by whodareswins, May 2, 2012.

  1. whodareswins macrumors regular

    Jul 12, 2011
    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!
  2. nburwell macrumors 68040


    May 6, 2008
    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.
  3. whodareswins thread starter macrumors regular

    Jul 12, 2011
    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.
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    I love the 24-70 but that is outside your budget. People seem to love the 18-200, which may be within range for you.
  5. iTiki macrumors 6502

    Feb 9, 2007
    Maui, Hawaii
    I use the 16-85 for my walk around, but prefer my 10-24 for landscapes.
  6. El Cabong macrumors 6502a

    Dec 1, 2008
  7. Artful Dodger macrumors 68020

    Artful Dodger

    May 28, 2004
    In a false sense of reality...My Mind!
    Ditto although I tried the 10-24 and sent it back, just a personal thing :cool:
  8. joshuaginter macrumors regular

    May 19, 2011
    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.
  9. JDDavis macrumors 65816


    Jan 16, 2009
    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.'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.

Share This Page