Midrange zoom alternatives?

[kimare]

I'm returning to DX after a year with D700, as I hardly used it and could justify the cost.

I'd like a lens lineup like this.
Ultra-wide (here there are plenty of cheap and decent alternatives 12-24, 10-20 etc)
then I'd like a normal where 35/1.8 meets my demands
I'll keep my 105VR and 70-200VR from the DX days.

But I'm a bit unsure about mid-range zooms. Here are som alternatives:
Nikon 16-85VR - but I find it bit slow on the long end. f/5.6 isn't very sexy on DX.
Tamron 17-50 - decent performer at a nice price, but I would prefer a bit more tele, lens changing at the beach or other dusty places doesn't appeal to me.

I miss a DX-lens similar to 24-120 f/4. What's the closest I'm coming to a 16-80 f/4 today, third-party lenses included?

I could go for a cheaper alternative, and wait for a 16-80/4 to arrive.
Nikon 18-105VR I guess this is a ok lens for a D7000 and a D40/60/3000
og how about Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5?

 

[scout1]

Interesting question and I too await the opinions. This is my current setup;

Nikon 12-24 f4
Nikon 17-55 f2.8
Nikon 35 f1.8
Nikon 50 f1.8
Nikon 85 f1.8
Nikon 80-200 f2.8, two ring
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 1
Nikon 300 f4

So for now I guess the 85 f1.8 serves the role as a mid range lens on DX, I shoot a D300.

 

[socrdude]

the 28-105 is one I enjoy alot.
Sharp and very affordable.

 

[kimare]

the 28-105 is one I enjoy alot.
Sharp and very affordable.

I enjoyed the 28-105 as a travel/family/snapshot lens on FX, but that lens would be wide enough on DX.
Both the Sigma 17-70 and the Nikkor 18-70 have recieved mediocre feedback on the D7000, so I'm a bit reluctant them both. The 28-105 recived mediocore reviews on the D700, but still worked decently for me. Maybye one of the 17/18-70mm could work for me?

 

[Ronald M]

I got D7000 last week with 18/105 because all he had was kits. Actually a pretty decent lens. Also have an 18/135 that came free with something and a 18/70 that was purchased with my D200 new years ago.

All three of these are really ok for intended purpose. Buy the 18/55 2.8 for the best. 24/70 2.8 if you can stand the size and weight. I will not buy any third party lenses.

I set up a bag for 12/24 Nikkor, 35 1.8, 18/105 VR, and 55/200 VR. This is what I will carry for general use.

I also got the 60 2.8 N and it is superb as a macro and short tele/portrait lens.

The 18/105VR seems to give better colors than the other two consumer midrange lenses. VR is nice feature.

I do not want to buy any more screw drive AF lenses. Mine all work well, but they are being phased out.

 

[leighton w]

Looks like everything's been covered except the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8.

 

[Martytoof]

Sigma 24-70 2.8 is a looker. I have the original screw drive version on my D200 and I'm very pleased with the results. It's no Nikkor, but for $500 it's a ridiculously good lens.

 

[Growltiger]

Forget about sexy. Go for quality.

The 16-85 is a superb lens. If you really need wide aperture, get the 35mm prime as well.

 

[STBear]

Just recently replaced a 18-70 with a 16-86. Nice lens and has VR.

 

[Neige]

I've been using the Tammy 17-50 and I'm impressed with its sharpness and low light capability, but like you it doesn't go quite long enough for a 'walk around' lens. The Beast is great in the mid-ranges, but not wide enough. I'm looking very hard at the 16-85 myself. I was less thrilled with it shooting with my D200 but with the incredible high ISO of my new D7000 it's definitely becoming very attractive.

 

[kimare]

I had a 16-85 on hand for normal second hand price. But decided to pull out because I was able to get a D70 + 18-70 and 50/1.8 for half the price of the 16-85.

I will then have the opertunity to test the 18-70 with the d7000, and see for myself if it meet my demands which are for snapshots and family shots. When things gets more seriously and I need more sharpness, I'll roll out the big guns 35/1.8, 50/1.8 or 70-200/2.8.

 

[sodapop]

What body? On a 12mp the 16-85, 18-105, and sigma 17-70 OS are very good choices, the sigma 24-70 also.

But on a d7000 the 16mp resolution starts to show differences in the lens. Comparing a 16-85 to a 18-105 shows the 16-85 to be better. Not by much, but you can see a slight difference. The sigma shows a slight drop from the 17-70 os, again, not by much.

The 18-70 and 24-120 I have not tried, waiting to get my screw drive 27-70 back from sigma for a re-chip to work on the d7000. Some of the older versions will not power up on it. It's a performer on the D90, it should do quite well on the d7000.

 

[Smiert Spionam]

The 16-85 is very tough to beat in this range, and I doubt you'll ever see an f/4 version. If you did, it would be twice the weight and twice the price. Still interested in waiting?

 

[kimare]

The 16-85 is very tough to beat in this range, and I doubt you'll ever see an f/4 version. If you did, it would be twice the weight and twice the price. Still interested in waiting?

I'll see if the 18-70 is good enough to fill the purpose of the lens. In the furture I think there's a chance to see a 16-80/4 or something similar.

And your prediction about price, size and weight is way off.
CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5
Price: $749.99
Length: 3.4" (83mm)
Maximum Diameter: 2.8" (72mm)
Weight: 15.5 oz (440 g)

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6
Price: $599.95
Length: 3.4" (86mm)
Maximum Diameter: 2.8" (71mm)
Weight: 17 oz (480 g)

24-120mm f/3,5-5,6VR VS 24-120mm f/4

Weight difference
575 g and 670 g
Size difference
3.0" (77mm) diameter, 3.7" (94mm) extension from flange and.
3.3" (84mm) diameter, 4.1" (103mm) extension from flange and.
Price difference
$510 and $1160

As the 16-85 f/3,5-5,6VR is superior to the 24-120 f/3,5-5,6VR, I assume they've used a more expensive construction. It would definitivly cost less than the 24-120 f/4, I guess a 16-80 f/4 would cost $800-ish.