Walkabout Lens Advice

[DekHog]

I've just purchased a D200 with less than 2000 clicks as...

a. I've always wanted one
b. Can't afford a D300
c. Seemed like a bargain

I hope it's as good as I think it's going to be - I know it's 'old' now, but it still appeals to me for my personal needs (don't need high ISO, live view or video, a la D90).

To go with this I've bought a Sigma 10-20mm (always wanted one of those as well), and a 50mm F1.8D. The problem comes with the walkabout lens. I can't afford the Nikon 18-200mm, so had almost decided on the Sigma 18-200mm OS instead, but the mixed reviews haven't really convinced me about this one.

I don't do or need 'long' when it comes to lenses, and the 35mm equivalent of around 150mm would do me fine. What did surprise me was the good reviews of the Nikon 18-105mm on SLRgrear.com! Is this lens actually any good, as I'm sure I also remember reading somewhere that it was total dog!

Typical lenses of the 17-70 range don't really interest me, as I'd like the extra reach of the lenses above. So, which one of the above two, or any other ideas welcome.

TIA

[Nod]

When I had my D200, the kit 18-70 that came with my D70 was the walkaround lens I stuck with. This was backed up with a couple of other lenses on my back, so I was covered from 12mm up to 300 with no gaps.

[IvorETower]

I have the Sigma 18-200 OS and have used it ion my D80 and D40, and been very pleased with the results. However it is a big and heavy lens.
I recently p/x-ed another little used lens for the Nikkor 18-105VR and have to say that I am just as impressed with it, despite some of the reviews. There is a little distortion, true, but unless you are into large-scale architectural photos that have plenty of straight lines in them, will you really notice? Also, its VR system is much quieter than the Sigma's.
Taken on the 18-105VR at almost its closest focussing distance:

[hech54]

When I had my D200, the kit 18-70 that came with my D70 was the walkaround lens I stuck with.

Yep. I personally cannot think of any non-Nikon lens in this zoom range/fstop range that could replace the old faithful 18-70.

[dyncoed]

Agreed, as a walkabout lens, the 18-70 nikkor stays put on my D80 most of the time. It's only when I want to shoot wildlife do I change to the 50-500.

[Learning]

I like my 16-85 more than the 18-200. For a longer length I change to the 70-300. On the 3 day 'sort of social/conservation/working' trip that I have just returned from, I carried the 16-85, 105 micro VR, and 70-300. The 70-300 was not used at all. The 105 was used for hand held shots of bugs as well as a fast telephoto. Over 90% of shots were done on the 16-85. These were a mixture of social and of the project in hand.
Not strictly relevant to your question I will add how impressed I was with the VR on the 105 micro. Hand held shots of bugs at about half size and 20% shots of a person on a following quad bike shot from the back of a pickup bouncing along a woodland track are sharp. I am almost certain that my own motion was corrected very well because in most of the shots spoilt by motion the background did not show camera shake. This lens is a superb short stabilised telephoto as well as a specialist macro lens.

[DekHog]

Thanks guys - Despite stating otherwise in my original post, after much deliberation and many good reviews and reports, I settled on a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 which arrived a couple of days ago and I am most impressed with - quite a chunk of lens though!

[IvorETower]

Indeed - that 17-70 is a fine piece of glassware; I have one on my Fuji S5 as its standard lens

[nspur]

It may be old and have variable reviews but I'm very fond of my Nikkor 24-120 f3.5-5.6 D and I often use it as a walkabout lens on my Fuji S5. With this combination I also take a Ricoh GX100 with the wide-angle converter so I have an effective focal range of 19mm to 180mm. I bought the 24-120 for £105.

[Monk]

Depends on the background to the walkabout.
But, I would make decision between two.
The Nikkor 85mm, ƒ1.4 is truly amazing, but you are in somebodies face. Great for people.
Generally as a 'Walkabout' I use a Nikkor 70-200 mm,ƒ2.8. This allows me to close in without being too close and personal.
The downside of both lenses is the lack of wide-angle/architechtural snapping.
But this rather depends on the nature of the walkabout. For an unknown site and ONE lens I would take, the 24-70mm, ƒ2.8.

[ermintrude]

I use the 18-200 VR almost exclusively if Im not taking a second lens.

[Paddysnapper]

The 18-70 kit lens that came with my 70s is my favorite, closely followed by my Tamron 55-200, and third but by no means last 50mm 1.8

[GeoffR]

Having just returned from nine days in Italy I have to say that for the vast majority of the time I found the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, attached to a D2Xs the most suitable lens. I carried it with me for around six hours a day, together with an ancient CCS bag containing a 70-200 f2.8 and a 75cl bottle of water.

Yes a something to 70 would have been nice but I don't know of a 17-70 f2.8.

[adetri]

I am a big fan of the Nikon 18-200mm. Many people don't like it because it is not as sharp as some lenses and has a bit of distortion, but really, it is so versatile, balances nicely on a D200 body and the results are good enough for most purposes. All these images taken on the 18-200mm - chosen for the different focal lengths used:

18mm

35mm

46mm

70mm

135mm (the softest focal length for this lens many say)

200mm

[parisian]

The best 'walkabout lens' is one that has it's own little legs to save pressure on your neck

[Barney]

It might not be wide enough for most people, but the old Nikkor 28-105mm AF-D is worth a look if you can find one.

[Rhys]

It might not be wide enough for most people, but the old Nikkor 28-105mm AF-D is worth a look if you can find one.

Yep, I have one on my F4. Being a full frame lens you use the centre only for DX bodies which is better and also it has a macro function to get a bit closer.