# Good All-Around Lens for Nikon



## cdg2985 (Apr 13, 2011)

I'm looking to get a good all-around lens for my Nikon D90.  I've been using the one it came with (the Nikkor 18-105mm) for a while now and I feel like I need to step it up.  I'm willing to spend around $1,000 (or less if possible).  I was looking to use it for outdoor shots of people, pets and some landscapes, just wondering if anyone has any suggestions...any input would help.  Thanks!


----------



## bigboi3 (Apr 13, 2011)

Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 or 24-70mm f/2.8.  That's what I would choose for a good all around zoom lens.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 13, 2011)

24-70 2.8 is killer, but way over that budget.

The problem you have with lenses is they jump very rapidly from the $500 range to the $1800 range and beyond.

If you're willing to forgo zoom lenses, prime lenses are an excellent idea.  85mm 1.8=~$500, 50mm 1.8=~$140

It really depends a lot on what kind of photography you do, though.

The long and the short of it is you need to figure out the focal lengths you need most, and then pretty much keep in mind that the more money you spend the better the lens.


----------



## mrpink (Apr 13, 2011)

I love my Nikkor 17-55 2.8, razor sharp, super nice build.  But as stated, you need to find out what focal lengths work best for you and shop around those numbers.

The budget listed, you should be fine.





p!nK


----------



## cdg2985 (Apr 13, 2011)

Thanks guys, I'll look into these lenses.  Now, this is a really dumb question, but if I'm going to be spending some serious dough on a lens, what are the main differences that I would notice and are those differences worth $1000 + ?  I honestly don't know because I've never taken photos with different lenses.


----------



## photocist (Apr 13, 2011)

sharpness at wider apertures, better light gathering capabilities, aspherical lenses (less chromatic aberration, which is how much different wavelengths of light go through glass. it can cause "fringing").

I would also suggest the prime route. Depending on what you like to shoot, look at 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and maybe a 125mm or whatever length is close. You should be able to get at least 2, if not 3 quality, fast lenses.


----------



## Ginu (Apr 14, 2011)

Personally I would do a mid range zoom (pricey tough) 24-70 f2.8 or a older 17-55 f2.8 if you like to shoot more at the wide side of things.

I had the 18-105 lens which came as a kit, but I ended up selling it fast as it was not up to my likings... I went for a super zoom 18-200 VR which did quite well, but there are limitations of-course and now I am setup with enough average lens for most usable range, so my next lens will be a mid range 24-70 f2.8 or a 70-200 f2.8 VR, haven't decided quite yet; then work towards completing the line in pro lens depending on what I feel the need might be.
My choices are:
14-24 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 VR
TC14 - teleconverter
135 f2d
50 f1.4



Another option is to rent some nice pro lens and see what suits you best. Seeing how you have the 18-105, you could still hang on to that lens and get a 70-200 VR and you will have a decent range not to mention an awesome lens for sports photography 
What holds you back with the 18-105? Do you feel the need for zoom or do you feel the need of a wide lens but faster, sharper with less distortion? 

It's all relevant on what you feel its missing from your current setup.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 14, 2011)

The 24-70 2.8.  I'm not a big user of wides, but since using this one for just over 2 weeks, it's just a really nice lens.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 14, 2011)

Again... the 24-70 2.8 is like $1800.  This is almost 2x his budget.  YES it is an awesome lens.  I have it and it almost never is off my camera, but it's EXPENSIVE.


----------



## Dao (Apr 14, 2011)

Maybe take a step back and see why you want a new lens.

If you think you need a new lens but do not know why, then I say you may not need a new lens now unless you have extra cash and do not know what to do with it.   For all around type lens, you already have it.  And of course, it has limitations.  But if you know what the limitations are, you may already have a clue what you like to get next, or at least know the type of lens or equipment you can get.


Are there any type of photos you like take but find that it is hard to do with your current camera setup?

i.e.  
You like to take a close up detail photo of a bee but with the current setup, the bee in the photo is tiny.
You like to take a outdoor photo of your friend with your friend looks nice and clear while the background is blurred. But with the current setup, everything is nice and clear.
You like to take a photo of a kid playing soccer, but the result is not what you expected.  The subject is either too small or it has some motion blur effect.
You like to take some indoor photos in your friend birthday party, the photos usually  blurry or otherwise looks like a *flash* photo where subjects were kind of bright with hash shadow while the background was dark.
.....
.....
.....
.....


----------



## KmH (Apr 14, 2011)

"Good, all-around lens", is an oxymoron.  

A jack of all trades, master of none lens is usually a also a big collection of design compromises.
Like Nikon's 18-200 mm superzoom. Convenient but it has some serious technical issues.

For "outdoor shots of people, pets and some landscapes" you would want 2 lenses at least. Landscapes require a wider angle lens than the people/pets shots would.


----------



## Ginu (Apr 14, 2011)

Good all around lens with would have to be the 18-200 VR II or the 28-300 VR for a little more reach. Both of those are in his price range and classified was a all around lens.

Need to be more specific to get more specific suggestions...


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 14, 2011)

There is no such thing as a good "all-around" lens.

The best you can do is something like a 24-70mm f2.8, and then have a separate telephoto and ultra-wide angle lens.

Sigma makes a 24-70mm f2.8 and Tamron makes a 28-75mm f2.8, both are in your budget.  They aren't quite as good as the $1800 nikon version, but they're pretty close in the comparison reviews I've seen--the major difference being field flatness, sharpness is nearly identical.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 14, 2011)

Nikon rulz.

I can say that because I happen to have the Nikon model and am being a snot.


----------



## Dzone2 (Apr 14, 2011)

Nikon 18-200mm VR II which it zooms further and meet your price range


----------



## Moe (Apr 14, 2011)

Listen to Dao and go from there. 

Research the Sigma 18-50 2.8 in place of the Nikon 17-55, if you decide that's the lens you're interested in. It'll be much cheaper and holds up well against the Nikon.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 15, 2011)

Dzone2 said:


> Nikon 18-200mm VR II which it zooms further and meet your price range



This has been said several times, but of course no one ever reads the whole thread before posting around here...

The 18-200 is a "fine" lens, but not a good one.

Lenses are a study in compromises.  The more capabilities they have, the worse they are... or the more expensive they are... or both.  A fast prime lens is going to tend to be the best overall quality for the lowest comparitive cost.  Add a little bit of zoom and either you lose capability (larger aperture, non-constant aperture) or your lose quality (lesser image quality at the various points in the zoom range, generally) or you pay significantly more money for the lens... or both.  And this doesn't even get into the size and weight.  What's more is the cost differential to keep that lens at a high quality is pretty much an exponential sliding scale.  Now there are very few direct comparisons in the lens world, but let's look at this one for example...

Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5 VR  ........  $230
Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II ........  $2400

Going back to our Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II ... $800

Now how good of a lens do you think that really is at 1/3 the price of the 70-200 with an additional 50mm of focal length?


----------



## KAikens318 (Apr 15, 2011)

I would actually go with a Sigma. I have noticed that they are just as sharp as Nikkors, great build, and cheaper. The 105mm 2.8 is really really nice. I use my 18-105mm as my all around lens, that one is the sharpest of the bunch that I have.


----------



## ghache (Apr 15, 2011)

Any one is using the new 24-120 F4 VR?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 15, 2011)

KAikens318 said:


> I would actually go with a Sigma. I have noticed that they are just as sharp as Nikkors, great build, and cheaper. The 105mm 2.8 is really really nice. I use my 18-105mm as my all around lens, that one is the sharpest of the bunch that I have.


 
This varies wildly by both lens model and even in some cases by individual copy. 

In some cases the Sigma lenses are a good choice, but not in all.  From most lens tests I've seen the Sigmas are (more often than not) behind the Nikkor equivs, but not always to a degree that matters enough to someone on a tighter budget.

The key is to review the tests, make the comparison, and choose what best fits your budget and needs.


----------



## thedang (Apr 15, 2011)

35-70mm 2.8? old and cheap


----------

