Walkaround lens for a D750

[dimme]

I am looking for a walk around lens for my D750. Sharpness in important and so is price, but I would rather do with out then get something that is soft. But I do realize zooms are always a compromise . Do anyone have experience wit a Nikon AF 28-200 F3.5-5.6B It used and on eBay it is also the older version D lens.
Other recommendations appreciated.
Thanks

 

[Bending Pixels]

24-120 f4

 

[dimme]

I just read the 28 to 200 G versions minimum focus is about 6 feet as where the G version will focus to about 2 feet, that a plus for me in a walk around lens.

 

[monokakata]

I've been pleased with the way the 28-300 works as a walk-around lens.

 

[phrehdd]

I am not trying to be harsh but I fail to understand why anyone would put a lower resolution lens zoom on a camera that is 20+mp. Most wide to tele zooms beyond 3x are compromised by design and cost. Whether it is one end of the zoom being universally soft or some points have excessive aberrations that are not as easy to correct in post.

Hopefully, part of your decision will include investigating the lens via some test reports in lab and in use. These one lens does all is a touch of a "too good to be true" and you'll need to be willing to compromise or have trade offs (like largest aperture being not that large or variable).

 

[monokakata]

I am not trying to be harsh but I fail to understand why anyone would put a lower resolution lens zoom on a camera that is 20+mp. Most wide to tele zooms beyond 3x are compromised by design and cost. Whether it is one end of the zoom being universally soft or some points have excessive aberrations that are not as easy to correct in post.

Hopefully, part of your decision will include investigating the lens via some test reports in lab and in use. These one lens does all is a touch of a "too good to be true" and you'll need to be willing to compromise or have trade offs (like largest aperture being not that large or variable).

The key phrase is "walk around." Here's me walking around at 11,000', terrain as you see in the background, with the 28-300 mounted on a D810. I have many other lenses, but chose not to load up a backpack with them, considering the conditions. The 28-300 was perfect for this task. It's all about the right tool for the job.

 

[simonsi]

Do anyone have experience wit a Nikon AF 28-200 F3.5-5.6B It used and on eBay it is also the older version D lens.
Other recommendations appreciated.
Thanks

I have had that lens from new (around 2005 I think), its still a lightweight walkaround lens on my D300s with the limitation of it not having much WA ability. Its fast to focus and plenty sharp, very sharp considering its age - I think it was Nikon's first foray into super zoom territory. It is also tiny

The Red Panda here was taken with it last October

ISO400, 1/750th, f/5.6 @135mm
[doublepost=1490066984][/doublepost]

I am not trying to be harsh but I fail to understand why anyone would put a lower resolution lens zoom on a camera that is 20+mp.

A camera is a compromise, one of the great benefits of an SLR is to be able to change the compromise by switching out the lens, obviously if size and weight are a relatively important factor then a wide-range zoom lets you modify that compromise without the excessive and unnecessary cost of another body...

 

[phrehdd]

Monokakata and Simonsi - as someone who has carted around single cameras with one lens (film days), to multiple cameras and multiple lenses not to mention view cameras, I'll say it again - you have spent money on nice cameras and then quite happy to put a lens that may produce mediocre or poor results and call it the "right lens for the job" simply on the merit it is "one lens only" and covers a large zoom range.

 

[simonsi]

Monokakata and Simonsi - as someone who has carted around single cameras with one lens (film days), to multiple cameras and multiple lenses not to mention view cameras, I'll say it again - you have spent money on nice cameras and then quite happy to put a lens that may produce mediocre or poor results and call it the "right lens for the job" simply on the merit it is "one lens only" and covers a large zoom range.

Well the worst camera in the world is one that doesn't get taken with you as it is too heavy to carry around.

Yes image quality can be only ONE aspect of consideration on the ideal compromise for a given situation, not everyone has the same level of fitness or mobility and guess what, at 11,000ft altitude (you DID pick up on that in Monikakata's post right?), neither would you.

In my case, my 70-200/2.8 isn't the perfect tool for EVERY occasion...I use it when appropriate, necessary or I wish to, I don't use it when I have other priorities to address.

And I'm assuming that you haven't owned or used the 28-200 lens in question?

 

[phrehdd]

Well the worst camera in the world is one that doesn't get taken with you as it is too heavy to carry around.

Yes image quality can be only ONE aspect of consideration on the ideal compromise for a given situation, not everyone has the same level of fitness or mobility and guess what, at 11,000ft altitude (you DID pick up on that in Monikakata's post right?), neither would you.

In my case, my 70-200/2.8 isn't the perfect tool for EVERY occasion...I use it when appropriate, necessary or I wish to, I don't use it when I have other priorities to address.

And I'm assuming that you haven't owned or used the 28-200 lens in question?

"Well the worst..." has nothing to do with anything since all here get to make a choice what to bring. Might as well whip out your iPhone and skip this entire conversation.

I've been around the block a few times and I get what people want here - a one lens does it all. I just merely find it a sad situation that people opt for expensive camera bodies (750 and 810 Nikon) only to slap on a mediocre lens. Given your suggestions here, why not just get one of those point and shoot cameras with a massive zoom range and you should be very happy as they are lighter and will take a 'snapshot' for you.

In fairness, I give Nikon and other lens makers great praise for their uber long zooms designed for beginners and some hobbyists. These lenses for their range do remarkably well but alas, compared to many other lenses they fall short. Over the years I have played with some of these longer lenses when helping others learn to use their cameras and provided them with some tips to help them explore the basics so they may find what they enjoy in the hobby. I couldn't find one of these long zooms to be good across the field and often find that avoiding certain focal lengths and aperture ranges was the smart thing to do if one wanted sharp images or with less of the 3 typical aberrations. Luckily, post processing can adjust for some flaws in lenses to a level people find acceptable.

 

[simonsi]

"Well the worst..." has nothing to do with anything since all here get to make a choice what to bring. Might as well whip out your iPhone and skip this entire conversation.

I've been around the block a few times and I get what people want here - a one lens does it all. I just merely find it a sad situation that people opt for expensive camera bodies (750 and 810 Nikon) only to slap on a mediocre lens. Given your suggestions here, why not just get one of those point and shoot cameras with a massive zoom range and you should be very happy as they are lighter and will take a 'snapshot' for you.

In fairness, I give Nikon and other lens makers great praise for their uber long zooms designed for beginners and some hobbyists. These lenses for their range do remarkably well but alas, compared to many other lenses they fall short. Over the years I have played with some of these longer lenses when helping others learn to use their cameras and provided them with some tips to help them explore the basics so they may find what they enjoy in the hobby. I couldn't find one of these long zooms to be good across the field and often find that avoiding certain focal lengths and aperture ranges was the smart thing to do if one wanted sharp images or with less of the 3 typical aberrations. Luckily, post processing can adjust for some flaws in lenses to a level people find acceptable.

No you miss the point entirely, I don't have that lens as a "one lens does it all", I have it just like my other lenses as an option for "this lens for that use case". If I want the best image quality I take a different lens(es), if if want the best portability AND its focal length suits I take that lens, if I want WA guess what? Yes I take a different lens for that. Portability is just one use case, the use case here isn't "the only lens I have so it must do it all and hence its an over-specced camera on a mediocre lens".

As to your other point, I'm not after extreme lightness, nothing is that black and white, a DSLR body and one lens is fine for me in the walkaround use case, is that just not acceptable to you? We should either carry point and shoots or pro-grade lenses to suit your view of the world? I have a point and shoot, I have pro grade lenses, I also have the 28-200 G and it is a perfectly good lens for the purpose for which I have it and the OP is considering it.

I'm sure your photography requirements aren't met by any single lens, nor are mine. Oh and your last paragraph comes over as so condescending it isn't true. I'm not a beginner, nor a hobbyist and you certainly won't be teaching me anything any time soon so please do not try and denigrate the argument by attaching those words to these lenses in this context. I'm still assuming you have no actual experience with the lens in question?

 

[mollyc]

Personally my favorite walkaround is a 24-70. No, it doesn't zoom, but my primary camera is a D800 so I can just crop in post if necessary. I value wide aperture over zoom, so with a 2.8 I can shoot low light indoors or outdoors. Plus, my natural preference, other than for specific portrait settings, is wide angle.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Personally my favorite walkaround is a 24-70. No, it doesn't zoom, but my primary camera is a D800 so I can just crop in post if necessary. I value wide aperture over zoom, so with a 2.8 I can shoot low light indoors or outdoors. Plus, my natural preference, other than for specific portrait settings, is wide angle.

Same here. If I'm just taking one lens, it's the 24-70 mm 2.8.
But then I always wish I had my 14-24 mm so I can go a bit wider.
Or my 70-200 mm so I can go a bit longer!
Usually I just take a selection.

 

[monokakata]

Phrehdd -- I've been at it for 50+ years myself. Zeiss, Miranda, then settled on Nikon F, went up to F5, then digital. Hasselblad for a while. And yes, a good old 4x5 view camera. 1000 mirror. The old 85 f/1.8, the old 21 where you had a lock the mirror up. 35 f/1.4. 28 f/2. I suppose I've had 15 or 20 different Nikon lenses, a handful of oddballs such as the Kilfitt macro, the Leica 200 and I can't remember what else.

And I shot for years in the Papua New Guinea rainforest where it was my practice to carry 2 Nikon F bodies each with a different lens (one wide, one short tele), one loaded with color, one loaded with b/w. Gossen LunaPro and Weston Master V. So I know a thing or two about equipment in the field under harsh conditions and what works and what doesn't.

I don't need a lecture on lenses, thank you very much, and I certainly don't need tagging as a "one lens does it all" shooter. I say there are definitely times when you want to carry just one lens. Did I say one ought to own only one lens? I did not.

I'll give you another example. Not long ago I went to see about shooting a lava flow entering the ocean. I wasn't sure how close I could get. I wasn't sure about the terrain, except in general. I looked at my cabinet of lenses and chose the 28-300 once again, instead of the 70-200 or the 300 f/4. Why? It's obvious, isn't it? I didn't know what I was going to need. It was a 4.5 mile hike in. Along the road I shot an interesting shot at 28. Finally at the ocean entry, there I was in the dark, pitch black, walking around on lava, D810 and 28-300 on a Gitzo monopod. Hundreds of other people. I shot at 300. Yes, taking the 300 prime would have been slightly better (one stop, higher quality) but then I'd have missed the 28 mm shot.

http://imgur.com/a/vOqpz

When I got back I bought the 200-500 because I saw that would have been the right lens for everything but the wide shot.

So, yeah. Lay off the condescending BS. Photography is about getting the shot. It's about art. It's only secondarily about equipment.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Aaah good, a fight. Since the mirrorless thread died down I'd been missing it.

 

[phrehdd]

For those who think referencing super long zooms as what is discussed here as being popular with amateurs and hobbyist is in some form condescending, I assure you it is not. The largest buyers of these type of lenses fall into this category. I did not want to respond just yet until I contacted someone in the business and literally asked who tends to buy these lenses (the person is a camera and lens rep). So, for those of you who felt slightly because I made mention of this don't take it personally as it was never intended to be as such. - And yes, as expected the reference was absolutely correct.

If someone wants to invest in a 750 or 810 or whatever moderate to high end camera and elect to put a long range zoom on it, then enjoy your choice, your photography experience and the files thus generated. As for me, I do my very best to carry the minimum required and for me, that is not one long super zoom but another selection of equipment. Before we run in circles here, you folks do what makes you feel good and truly hope you enjoy. We will simply disagree.

 

[Precision Gem]

One of my favorite lenses I have for my D750 is an old Nikkor AF 28-105 that also has Macro (1lb). I bought the lens used from eBay, and find it on my camera more often than most anything else. It is smaller and lighter than most other lenses, has the macro mode and is a good general purpose walking around lens.
I also have the 28-300 ED VR lens (1lb 13oz), and despite what phrehdd claims, is a very fine lens, and I have taken many nice photos with it.

 

[phrehdd]

One of my favorite lenses I have for my D750 is an old Nikkor AF 28-105 that also has Macro (1lb). I bought the lens used from eBay, and find it on my camera more often than most anything else. It is smaller and lighter than most other lenses, has the macro mode and is a good general purpose walking around lens.
I also have the 28-300 ED VR lens (1lb 13oz), and despite what phrehdd claims, is a very fine lens, and I have taken many nice photos with it.

Again people use what they find makes them happy. Since I am the lone dissenter here, I thought I might just share an article that is akin to my own thoughts. Be aware that some of the images shown do look very nice and I acknowledge that. I hope you, monokakata, simonsi and all others enjoy the article and hopefully understand my perspective and not feel I am being as one said - condescending. This covers nicely the 28-200 and 28-300.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/

 

[monokakata]

The straw in the straw man is making me sneeze.

Nobody, as in nobody, ever claimed that the 28-300 was the equal of lenses like the 70-200 or the 24-70 or any prime. Sheesh. Of course it isn't. That's hardly news.

Your "perspective" is that you don't like longish zooms because their optical quality isn't a good match for something like a D750 or D810. So? Who cares whether beginners or manufacturers are pushing those superzooms. I don't care -- it's nothing to me at all, and it's also not in any way relevant to the OP's question.

Do you think that you know something that we who use those lenses don't? That we think they are the proverbial greater than sliced bread kind of lenses? I sure don't; never have, never will, because obviously they are not.

But they are damned useful -- that's all anybody's been saying. Damned useful, and lenses to consider suggesting to a poster asking about a walk-around lens. Can't you wrap your mind around that? It's simple, really.

What is the point of continuously attacking something that no one said?

How have your comments helped the OP? The OP seems so turned off by the attacks on the lenses suggested for his particular, highly specific use case that he (or she) seems to have left. I can see why.

 

[phrehdd]

This isn't a polemic debate of any sort so please spare us the reference to the straw man argument. As for who is turned off... I see someone who has a lens they like that I don't like and that is all. I see someone who wants to defend their choice and really doesn't listen when the other person says enjoy what you have but continues to try to get upset. I see someone who evidently is upset with a simple article where I acknowledge there are some nice images. So, in the end I'll say again enjoy your camera, enjoy the lens you feel best serves you and leave it at that. Now go for the last word as your hana hou.

 

[Precision Gem]

This isn't a polemic debate of any sort so please spare us the reference to the straw man argument. As for who is turned off. I see someone who has a lens they like that I don't like and that is all. I see someone who wants to defend their choice and really doesn't listen when the other person says enjoy what you have but continues to try to get upset. I see someone who evidently is upset with a simple article where I acknowledge there are some nice images. So, in the end I'll say again enjoy your camera, enjoy the lens you feel best serves you and leave it at that. Now go for the last word as your hana hou.

I have several Nikon "Pro" lens, yet find myself using the 28-300 very often especially when I travel and just take the camera and one lens. However, the past year, I have found that the Nikon D750 and the heavy bag with lens is staying home a lot more, and I am getting way more use out of the Olympus OMD-M1 with a wider range of lens, in a bag at a fraction of the weight. I'm sure you will tell me this camera and lens are crap and that I shouldn't be using it.

 

[Freida]

Guys, can you all just chill? There is no need to compare who's dongle is bigger.

Just advice what your suggestion is for the OP and move along. No need to fight over BS!

 

[phrehdd]

I have several Nikon "Pro" lens, yet find myself using the 28-300 very often especially when I travel and just take the camera and one lens. However, the past year, I have found that the Nikon D750 and the heavy bag with lens is staying home a lot more, and I am getting way more use out of the Olympus OMD-M1 with a wider range of lens, in a bag at a fraction of the weight. I'm sure you will tell me this camera and lens are crap and that I shouldn't be using it.

I don't really care what you use. I do find your need to defend your use of an Oly rig rather curious if not sad. No milk and cookies for you.

Take some time to go read the OP post about wanting sharpness and doing without. Yes, the very first post that started all this. Then go look at all the whining when someone (me) says the lens is somewhat a mismatch for the 750 and I later provided a relevant link which not only referenced the 28-200 but also the 28-300 (a somewhat better lens). The OP welcomed other suggestions. Now what don't you understand?

As for the OP, hope the person finds what works based on the concerns of the original post.

 

[dimme]

Thank You everyone for the suggestions and the lively discussion. Let me start off on some background of my original post. I had a few extra dollars and was looking on eBay and saw a few used Nikon AF 28-200 F3.5-5.6D lens. In the past (years ago) I never was impressed with wide to tele lens, but that was in the past. I few years ago my wife bought a D90 with a 18 to 105 lens. I said to her I would not get that lens it won't be good. Well when she got it I was very surprised at the quality of the images especially after correcting for the optics in Lightroom. So that is why my query.
This discussion help me and I thank everyone. I first decided I do not want a used lens, even though I had great luck in the past. I do own a Nikon 28 to 105 mm and have used that lens for 15 years, it does work well for me again with post pressing corrections when needed, however it is starting to ware. I am taking the funds that I was going to use purchase a used lens and have my 28 to 105 mm refurbished, I am also have my manual focus 135 and 55 micro which I used for 30+ years cleaned and lubed. This and my other lens should keep me happy for a while. I do see myself in the future moving to a lighter camera system, but that is not in the cards right now.
Thanks again everyone!!

 

[Precision Gem]

I don't really care what you use. I do find your need to defend your use of an Oly rig rather curious if not sad. No milk and cookies for you.

Take some time to go read the OP post about wanting sharpness and doing without. Yes, the very first post that started all this. Then go look at all the whining when someone (me) says the lens is somewhat a mismatch for the 750 and I later provided a relevant link which not only referenced the 28-200 but also the 28-300 (a somewhat better lens). The OP welcomed other suggestions. Now what don't you understand?

As for the OP, hope the person finds what works based on the concerns of the original post.

I didn't think I was defending my use of the Olympus, only stating some facts.

As far as the Nikon 28-300 goes, an other review of the lens states:

"This 28-300mm VR replaces an entire bag of lenses or zooms. No longer do I carry any other lens in this focal length range. This 28-300 really does replace every other wide, normal, tele, macro and zoom. It's Nikon's newest and best. It is superb for photographing anything that holds reasonably still."

and goes on...

'The 28-300mm VR is super-sharp, easy to zoom and focus with instant manual-focus override, and its vibration reduction really works to allow low-light hand-held shooting at 300mm at 1/4 of a second, presuming you know how to shoot a rifle well. (VR can't stop active subjects, but it does stop hand-held camera shake.)"

Have you personally ever tried the lens? I am very satisfied with mine and find it very sharp.