Beyond kit lenses

[_Rick_]

Get the Tokina 11-16/2.8 or a used 300/4, depending on whether you can be bothered to lug the tele around. It's not huge - but much larger than what you currently have.

The wide angle really opens up another world. Not just in landscapes, where I'd go so far as to say it's almost too wide, and gives you just a bunch of sky, but in perspective.
You can stop it down to get an incredibly deep sharp field, which allows you to place close up subjects into an actual environment. You have to work a bit, to get the perspective distortion in your favor, but you can get shots that are more complex, than what tighter imaging angles do. Of course, it's also a bit of a gimmick, if used badly, but it's a fun lens to learn and to get to grips with. It's also good enough to be an only lens, on a walk around. Sure, you won't get any wild life, but it's awesome for capturing atmospheres.

The 300 on the other hand is the gateway to the real tele lenses. On DX it's a nice starter lens for birding even, especially on a high-res sensor. The extra F/stop over a 5.6 helps in low light, and is sharpness-wise probably comparable to a 70-300VR at F/8 when at F/4 - but I'm just estimating. That 70-300VR would be another alternative - if you can get it significantly cheaper than the 300/4. or can't live with the bulk.

A real third alternative would be a macro in 60-90 mm range, which works nice for flowers, reproduction work and such, while doubling as a reasonable portrait lens. F/2.8 might not look like a lot, but it sure beats F/4.5 when trying to blur the background.

 

[Lat]

FWIW...

Biggest game changer for me was replacing my kit with a Tamron 17-50 2.8. The extra speed made for a huge difference. I almost never use the telephoto unless I know ahead of time that I'm going to use it. I can't think of a time when I was walking around and wished that I had it.

Before I got the Tamron, my go to walk around "kit" was a 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.7.

Tamron has served me well overall, I'd go with the Tamron 18-270 from your list, a bit longer than the Sigma.

Ditto. My walkaround lens is the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8. The faster lens definitely helps, especially as it's F/2.8 even at 50mm.
Then again, with a full frame body, I don't know if you can get a similar lens at its price point.

I previously had the Nikkor 18-200VR, and I found that I rarely used the telephoto. I'm personally not a fan of the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none lens. You can always just grab a separate telephoto lens (55-200VR is what I use) for the rare moments when you need it.

 

[jhansman]

Well, as an interim step I sold my kit 55-200 for Nikons 55-300 (refurb); so far I love it. A bit heavier, but great optics and having that extra reach is good for me. I've resigned myself to the fact that a superzoom is not a solution for me, so having a second lens to cover wide to normal is now a given. My renting the Tokina 11-16 showed me I have little use for such a lens, so the suggested Tamron 17-50/2.8 might be worth looking at. Off to research...

Thanks for all the feedback. No shortage of opinions here

BTW, in the interim I bought the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di USD 1:1 AF Macro; kept it a week, put it through it's paces and sent it back. Mediocre sharpness, weighs a ton, and far too much money for what you get. Might have been a bad copy, but for $750, I expected more.

 

[blastingcap]

I've never heard of the Tamron macro lens described as "mediocre sharpness" before. Perhaps you got a bad sample or were getting some front- or back-focus issues

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I've never heard of the Tamron macro lens described as "mediocre sharpness" before. Perhaps you got a bad sample or were getting some front- or back-focus issues

Agreed, a 90mm macro should be tack sharp.

 

[iGas]

Agreed, a 90mm macro should be tack sharp.

I agree.

Tamron 90mm is as sharp as the Nikkor Micro 85mm, and slightly behind Nikkor Micro 105mm and Zeiss 100mm. However, they all fall behind the Canon 100mm macro, while the Canon 100L take a bit more lead over the rest of the pack in sharpness.

DxOmark Compare lenses

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I agree.

Tamron 90mm is as sharp as the Nikkor Micro 85mm, and slightly behind Nikkor Micro 105mm and Zeiss 100mm. However, they all fall behind the Canon 100mm macro, while the Canon 100L take a bit more lead over the rest of the pack in sharpness.

DxOmark Compare lenses

You always have to take the DxO ratings with a grain of salt. Sample-to-sample variation can be large, even among high-end lenses. The guy at LensRentals has tested large numbers of lenses and posted their variations. My conclusion is that if two lenses are relatively close in DxO score then there is little practical difference, and an actual comparison of 2 randomly drawn copies of the lenses could result in the opposite conclusion than DxO shows.

Interestingly enough, he has compared 3 of the Macro lenses that you mentioned. While indeed the Canon L macro does appear to be better, on average, than the Zeiss and non-L Canon, it is perfectly possible to pick a copy of the Zeiss or non-L that outperforms one of the poorer quality L copies; and the "failed lens" (bad copy) in the lower-left corner happens to be an L, and would appear visibly bad, and be outperformed by pretty much any good copy of a macro lens from any brand.

This image shows the difference between the original and the Mk II versions of the Canon 24-70. As you can see, he tested many copies of both (70 Mk IIs, 125 originals). There is a definite trend of the Mk II being better than the original, as expected; indeed, there is no overlap. However, it is perfectly possible that someone with a good copy of an original, and a bad copy of a Mk II, would not be able to see a visible improvement. (Although none of the lenses in this chart could really be called "bad copies" since they all fall within normal variance patterns.)

So when you see anecdotes on forums and the like, "X lens is sharper than Y lens" then you have to take it with a grain of salt. Most users (and apparently even DxO Labs) only test one copy of a given lens. It could be on the high end or the low end for that particular lens. Their conclusion, while correct for the lenses that they are comparing in that particular instance, may not hold for all copies of the lenses in question.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/ 2013/09/ there-is-no-perfect-lens
(you'll have to copy and paste the last one and remove the spaces; for some reason the forum is screwing it up)

 

[guachi]

I'd lean towards a 2.8 zoom lens as a decent walk around lens. It's decent enough in low light and has some versatility.

The Sigma 17-50 2.8 looks like a good option and you can get one for about $570 and it has stabilization. Replace the 18-55 you have and keep the 55-300 for longer reach.