My travel setup with DX is 18-200, 35 1.8, sigma 10-20, most importantly, a monopod. Have a look at my Hungary-Vienna pics in my gallery. they were all done with this setup.
I need a Travel Zoom DX Lens
- Thread starter jwstl
- Start date
I haven't missed VR at all on the 17-55.
As a comparison, my normal travel kit is a Sigma 10-20, Nikkor 17-55, Nikkor 70-300 VR, Nikkor 35/1.8G, and Nikkor 50/1.4D. At times I will add the 18-200 (depending on planned activities) or replace the 70-300 with it.
k
Lots of good advice. Thanks everyone.
I'm now considering my first Sigma lens. Anyone use and care to comment on the 17-50 2.8? I has VR and it's just a few dollars more than than the Nikon 16-85 with the advantage of having a faster and constant aperture. I've read the lens is sharp but there have been issues with quality control.
I'm now considering my first Sigma lens. Anyone use and care to comment on the 17-50 2.8? I has VR and it's just a few dollars more than than the Nikon 16-85 with the advantage of having a faster and constant aperture. I've read the lens is sharp but there have been issues with quality control.
I haven't used the Sigma 17-50 but have used the Tamron. The Tamron is very nice.
I thought I would share with you the decisions that I made. I ended finding a good deal on a new copy of the highly regarded Sigma 17-50 2.8 so I bought that along with the Nikon 35 1.8 for low light. I considered other options but the Sigma was a good price and I really like the constant 2.8 aperture. Thom Hogan speaks highly of the Sigma so I'm sure I'll like it.
Cowboybillybob1
Senior Member
I use this "All-In-One" DX walk around lens on a D7000. It quickly became one of my fave lenses for that camera. I paid $550 which includes a $100 mail-in rebate (I still have not received a check after about 3 to 4 weeks). They are now going for about $450 bucks with no rebate. That is a super bargain on a nice lens.
It also has Vibration Reduction by the way.
Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens AFB008N-700 B&H
It also has Vibration Reduction by the way.
Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens AFB008N-700 B&H
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I have been considering replacing my 18-55 kit lens and I am really thinking about the 18-105mm .That seems like a lens that would get lots of use.
I have both the Tamron 17-50 VC and the 18-270 VC. They are both great lenses. I take my 18-270 travelling along with my 35/1.8 for low light. You mentioned in your OP that you were taking your 70-300 and wanted to know if money was no object, what would you buy? I am surprised I'm the only one who suggested the 24-70/2.8, especially when you said you may go FX one day.
I think I would not like to travel with the 24-70 unless going somewhere just for taking pics. The 24-70 is NOT a vacation lens as far as I'm concerned because it's just so heavy and attracts too much attention. Just my opinion.
I concur. I was also looking for something wide enough for a DX body and this didn't fit the requirements. I have every intention of getting this lens this year for an FX camera but not for my DX travel kit. I'm also holding out hoping for an for an upgrade to the 24-70 that includes VR.
Yeah fair enough, but just for arguments sake, it's only 155g heavier than the 70-300, 3mm larger in diameter and is actually 11mm shorter with no hood, when the 70-300 is zoomed out. Personally, I'd def take it for travel if I was going on a dedicated photo holiday along with a 70-200/2.8, a 35/1.8, a 50/1.8 and a UWA like a 16-35. For just a holiday lens, I wouldn't take a 17-50 and a 70-300. That would be too much. I'd take a super zoom like a 18-270 and 35/1.8 for low light. Covers pretty well all bases, light and not too much lens changing. But that's just my opinion and what I've done in the past. I guess everyone's different
Yeah fair enough, but just for arguments sake, it's only 155g heavier than the 70-300, 3mm larger in diameter and is actually 11mm shorter with no hood, when the 70-300 is zoomed out. Personally, I'd def take it for travel if I was going on a dedicated photo holiday along with a 70-200/2.8, a 35/1.8, a 50/1.8 and a UWA like a 16-35. For just a holiday lens, I wouldn't take a 17-50 and a 70-300. That would be too much. I'd take a super zoom like a 18-270 and 35/1.8 for low light. Covers pretty well all bases, light and not too much lens changing. But that's just my opinion and what I've done in the past. I guess everyone's different
My trip is somewhere between a photo holiday and a non-photo holiday. I'm going to run a half marathon and will stay for around 8 days to see sites and take photos. I like the idea of a super-zoom but I can't bring myself to use them because I give up a bit of quality and I don't want that. I'd rather have to change lenses. What I may do is take 2 small bodies-3200s possibly-with a lens on each so there isn't much changing. Mine is an ever changing plan so I appreciate all opinions.
So if its between a photo holiday and not a photo holiday, why bring two bodies? Honestly, the best lenses I've had on a one dx camera are the 16-85vrii and the 35 or 50 1.8. Anything more than that and its a photo vacation. If youre looking for better quality, you're going to have to bite the bullet and get a 24-70 or something. Those are literally two of the best DX lenses available.