I currently own a 28-300mm Sigma lens and was wondering what else is available in the $300 and under range (second hand is fine too), as a walk around lens for my D100.

Thanks.

P.S. I'm more of a Canon guy - Help!

The Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 is an excellent all around lens that would get you a wider perspective than you currently have with your Sigma. They are commonly available second hand and well under your posted budget.

Another consideration would be a 35mm prime which can also be considered a 'walk around' lens. Both versions, AF-D f/2.8 and AF-S f/1.8, are excellent compact little jewels and available below your preferred expense.

Gaylon suggested both of the lenses that I was going to.

A third option is a Tamron 17-50. I got mine for $275. So it may be possible to find one in your budget, but might take some looking.

I'll third the 18-70

I'll forth the 18-70 lens. It's not as sharp as my 80-200, but then it also cost a boatload less

How about a lens that is not a DX?

Gaylon Holmes wrote:
The Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 is an excellent all around lens that would get you a wider perspective than you currently have with your Sigma. They are commonly available second hand and well under your posted budget.

Another consideration would be a 35mm prime which can also be considered a 'walk around' lens. Both versions, AF-D f/2.8 and AF-S f/1.8, are excellent compact little jewels and available below your preferred expense.


I don't think the 35 2.8d exists, perhaps you meant the f/2?

I have always tried to like primes but I shoot a lot of events and a lot of times its in a room, or a restaraunt style setting and the zooms are so much more handy. Just expensive. I have the 35mm F2 but sometimes a table is blocking me from backing up or people are in the way. I usually shoot with a Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 on a D700 and the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR on a D3. I want to get the 24-70mm F2.8 but just don't really want to drop the duckets on it yet.

Adam73 wrote:
How about a lens that is not a DX?

It's a DX camera. If you put an FX walkaround lens on, you're going to have no wide angle. 28mm at the wide end is 42mm equivalent field of view. 24mm is a little better, but still.

90 5.0 wrote:
I don't think the 35 2.8d exists, perhaps you meant the f/2?

Ooops! Should not post late at night

I use a Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 AFS as my walkaround and 1-lens-kit vacation zoom lens. It's razor sharp, and I love it.

Also consider a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Also very sharp when stopped down, but it offers slightly softer f/2.8 performance at all focal lengths for when the lights get dim.

Sounds like the 18-70mm is the way to go! Thanks for all the help .

Are you switching from this lens to another one, or will the new lens be additional to your 28-300? Because there's a new 35/1.8 prime for DX that's getting good reviews, but that one (and all the other suggestions so far) is a fairly wide lens, and you'd lose a ton of reach if you're selling the Sigma and buying another lens. Don't know how important that is to you.

If you're adding a new lens, but keeping your 28-300, then I suggest you look at the 35/1.8 DX, the 18-70 or 18-55, the Tamron 17-50, or the Tokina 16-50. If you're selling the Sigma, you may want to consider stretching your budget a little and getting the 18-200 VR (version 1) or a secondhand 16-85 VR.

how does the 18-55 vr kit lens compare to the 18-70?
(sorry i'm a noob, and this is my first post)

Welcome to FM, then.

I really like both of them. VR is always to have in my book, but one has VR and the other one has an extra 15mm of reach. Both are optically good. Pick your favorite.

thanks for the reply... and sorry if i'm hijacking.

yah, the 18-70 would cost me net $100 probably, so i'm probably going to pass on it. it's hard to know which is my fav since i've never even used an 18-70.

Adam73 wrote:
How about a lens that is not a DX?

Look for a used 28-105

Another 18-70 Vote. The one lense I refuse to sell.

I'd vote for the Tamron 17-50. I used it as my primary lens on a weeklong trip to Australia and it worked great. Unfortunately it has some really weird distortion at the wide end but it is a good deal and a fast zoom. The only other issue I had with it was slow AF but IQ was good.

skyvan wrote:
I'd vote for the Tamron 17-50. I used it as my primary lens on a weeklong trip to Australia and it worked great. Unfortunately it has some really weird distortion at the wide end but it is a good deal and a fast zoom. The only other issue I had with it was slow AF but IQ was good.

Were you using the motor-in-lens version?

The motorless version focuses very quickly on my D200.