Best midrange zoom lens for travel / every day?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Ado Wolf

Ado Wolf

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I've been pondering on this issue for a while , but I don't seem to find "the right solution".
I've got the wide end covered with the Tokina 11-16 mm and on the longer end also covered with the 70-200 f4 + 300 PF.
The midrange is were I am struggling.. I have the 24, 35 and 50 f1.8 Primes, which are very good, but constant switching of lenses is tiring.
I have the kit 18-55 mm but I am not happy with it. It is too dark for golden hours or blue hours (when I am mostly active).

I have considered the :
1] Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4.. but it is a kit lens.. I rather have constant f2.8
2] Nikon 17-55 f2.8, too expensive for a DX only lens (rather have FX)
3] Nikon 24-70 f2.8.. seems to be the solution but is currently not in my budget
4] Sigma 17-50 f2.8 .. but I rather stick with Nikon for future compatibility
5] Sigma sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4.. rather have constant 2.8 (and a Nikon)
6] Tamron or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 are looking good, but are currently not in my budget

Have I missed something? any recommendations for preferably a FX lens, semi-professional quality, that covers that mid range.

Thanks in advance.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I've been pondering on this issue for a while , but I don't seem to find "the right solution".
I've got the wide end covered with the Tokina 11-16 mm and on the longer end also covered with the 70-200 f4 + 300 PF.
The midrange is were I am struggling.. I have the 24, 35 and 50 f1.8 Primes, which are very good, but constant switching of lenses is tiring.
I have the kit 18-55 mm but I am not happy with it. It is too dark for golden hours or blue hours (when I am mostly active).

I have considered the :
1] Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4.. but it is a kit lens.. I rather have constant f2.8
2] Nikon 17-55 f2.8, too expensive for a DX only lens (rather have FX)
3] Nikon 24-70 f2.8.. seems to be the solution but is currently not in my budget
4] Sigma 17-50 f2.8 .. but I rather stick with Nikon for future compatibility
5] Sigma sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4.. rather have constant 2.8 (and a Nikon)
6] Tamron or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 are looking good, but are currently not in my budget

Have I missed something? any recommendations for preferably a FX lens, semi-professional quality, that covers that mid range.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Looks a bit like you answered your own question Ado.

Preferrably FX
Preferrably Nikon
Preferrably constant aperture
Preferrably F/2.8

The only qualifying lens in your line up would be the Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 but you say it’s beyond what you’re willing to pay for.
Did you consider to buy Used?

I would recommend to look at the 24-120 F/4, ticks all boxes but the F/2.8 aperture, it’s sharp, good consistent AF and the right range in FL.
It’s known for somewhat weaker performance at the long end but there’s overlap with your 70-200 so that’s no real problem.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
A vote for the 16-80 f2.8-4. I have used it extensively on a D500 and D7200. It’s a very good lens. Better than a typical “kit” lens. I think it is a bit better optically than the 24-120, which I used to have and used on a D810 and Df.

Of the lenses you list, it’s the only one that goes to 16 mm, the FOV equivalent of 24 mm on FX. For me, I strongly prefer that a mid-range zoom include the 24 mm FX FOV. Of course, you have 16 mm covered on your Tokina (I use that too on my DX bodies), but it’s nice not to change lenses.

Downsides are that it is not a constant f2.8 and is a DX lens should you go FX in the future.

I am now using Z bodies for most general use and my mid-range zooms are now the Z mount 24-70 f4 (when I want something light) and the Z mount 24-70 f2.8 (when I want 2.8).
 
Member's gallery
@Jungan thank you for your feedback. Good point about it's value although this might change since Z lenses are entering the market and demand for F might eventually drop.

@Pistnbroke thank you for your feedback, but I rather avoid kit lenses (lower IQ than my expectations)

@Andy Work @Thern thank you for pointing this lens out. I guess it is a high end kit lens. I will check it out.

@Thern the 24-70 2.8 is the obvious choice, but for such an investment I should wait and see if (or rather when) I will switch to Z cameras. There is a S 24-70 f4 version.
 
Member's gallery
Another vote for the 24-120. I find I use it much more than the 24-70. Years back, Thom Hogan dumped his 24-70G in favor of the 24-120 f4 as it was "better behaved". The DX equivilent is the 16-80. I've never embraced DX lenses as I feel Nikon hasn't embraced them. Going forward I don't see much, if anything, happening in F mount DX.
 
Member's gallery
I'd vote for the 16-80mm too. It is not a typical 'kit' lens (with the negatives that this label produces). It is an excellent lens that covers a very useful DX range. The price is a bit high bit I am glad that I bought it for my D7200. I don't miss the constant f2.8 since I normally use it around f8 for landscapes and travel. Carry a 35/50 mm f1.8 for use in low light.

The 24-120mm is a good FX travel lens which covers the same focal range on a full-frame camera as the 16-80mm does on Dx. But, using the 24-120mm on a Dx camera loses the wide angle range since 24-120mm on Dx is a field of view equivalent to 36-180mm. It also adds weight. SO, unless a shift to full frame is in the future, this might not be the best choice.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 17-55 f2.8 that I got to replace the kit 18-70 and was worried that I'd miss the reach of the 18-70. My fears were groundless and I loved that fantastic lens. It was my first pro grade lens and it made me appreciate the benefits of really good lenses. It was welded onto my cameras before I went FF.

I still have it and would sell it if you were 1) interested and 2) in the UK!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Another vote for the 24-120mm f/4 or 16-80mm depending on how wide you'd like for your walk around lens on a DX body. Both are very good lenses and both are smaller, lighter and more cost effective than something like the 24-70mm f/2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top