Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
climber2020
Posts: 2708
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:06 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by climber2020 »

RooseveltG wrote:Thanks for all the info.

If you are only carrying 1 lens, is there much difference between a 35mm and 50mm lens (assuming they are equally fast)? Which one is better for multipurpose use?

Roosevelt.
A 35mm lens on a body with a full frame sensor (i.e. not the camera you have) is probably more useful for most people than a 50 just because of the wider angle of view (for reference, the camera on iphones have lenses that are equivalent to around a 30mm). You can always crop a 50mm view from a photo shot with a 35, especially with the ridiculous megapixel counts on modern cameras, but you can't crop a 35 from a 50.

"Zooming with your feet" is not the same thing as shooting with a lens with a different focal length, especially when the goal is to go wider. The purpose of a wide angle lens is to emphasize foreground over background in a composition, and no amount of foot zooming with a 50mm lens will mimic the perspective you get from a 24mm lens.
User avatar
SmileyFace
Posts: 9184
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:11 am

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by SmileyFace »

pennstater2005 wrote:
tibbitts wrote:I'm very surprised at the willingness to settle for 18-200 when we now have 16-300 technology in a not-that-much-bigger (and more importantly still single-lens) package. Also you get the 6yr warranty and 3-day repair with the 16-300 (which I've used on other Tamron products, and it really has been 3 days for me.) From what I've read the Nikon 18-300 has a little edge in performance on the long end, but you have to live with the heftier price tag, and without that 2mm on the wide side. Is it the Nikon brand that's swaying people, or some other factor?
I understand your reasoning for the length but the difference between 16 and 18mm will be nearly unnoticeable. Take a picture at each of these focal lengths or any two focal lengths 2mm apart. You won't squeeze in an extra person with that, maybe an arm if you're lucky.
When you get down under 18mm, 2mm it starts becoming more noticeable. 2mm might not be noticeable once you are at 20mm and above - but as you approach the lower end there is more and more difference. I see a notice-able difference between 16 and 18 (and there is a HUGE difference between 12 and 14). There is a tool here that illustrates this:
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learni ... arison.php
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

ray.james wrote:
RooseveltG wrote:The price is not an issue. My daughter wants to give me her old Nikon 18-200 VR. It is a good lens but is very heavy. I have read about the Nikon 55-200 VR as a good alternative. It is lighter but I am not sure how useful the 55mm range is.

Thanks.

Roosevelt.
I have the 55-200 mm lens. But it would not be a single camera lens. I carry 18-55 along with it. My favorite has been 35mm(almost always the best)/50mm fixed lens. Hard to beat the quality. They just do the job of taking portraits with good background scenes.

Also, your requirement to take portraits of people with background scene vs taking landscape/nature pictures plays a big role. I will checkout your daughters lens and go from there.
I agree.

I have a 55-200 zoom lens, I bought it specifically because I wanted to cover 'almost all' possible situations. It's only minorly bulky, and not too heavy.

However, as I posted above, I've found that the fixed 50mm 1.4 lens outperforms it the majority of the time. I'm not even a photog buff, but even I can tell the difference in clarity and sharpness when I shoot with the fixed vs the the 55-200 (fixed is better) in almost all situations.

I never even carry the zoom anymore, I just leave the fixed 50mm on it, it's that good. The fixed aspect of the lens is also misleading - it by no means is just good at a very specific depth. It works at a variety of ranges, and because it's fixed, it's a lot easier to really get good at shooting top-notch shots, as you will have less variables to worry about.

Plus, it's THE best lens for most common and treasured uses of amateur photogs, which is portraits and portrait-range shots - even top pros will use this exact lens, for good reason.

I could readily get rid of all my lenses except this 50/1.4 lens. I would NOT be happy if you let me keep all my lenses but made me give up that one lens.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

lightheir wrote:
ray.james wrote:
RooseveltG wrote:The price is not an issue. My daughter wants to give me her old Nikon 18-200 VR. It is a good lens but is very heavy. I have read about the Nikon 55-200 VR as a good alternative. It is lighter but I am not sure how useful the 55mm range is.

Thanks.

Roosevelt.
I have the 55-200 mm lens. But it would not be a single camera lens. I carry 18-55 along with it. My favorite has been 35mm(almost always the best)/50mm fixed lens. Hard to beat the quality. They just do the job of taking portraits with good background scenes.

Also, your requirement to take portraits of people with background scene vs taking landscape/nature pictures plays a big role. I will checkout your daughters lens and go from there.
I agree.

I have a 55-200 zoom lens, I bought it specifically because I wanted to cover 'almost all' possible situations. It's only minorly bulky, and not too heavy.

However, as I posted above, I've found that the fixed 50mm 1.4 lens outperforms it the majority of the time. I'm not even a photog buff, but even I can tell the difference in clarity and sharpness when I shoot with the fixed vs the the 55-200 (fixed is better) in almost all situations.

I never even carry the zoom anymore, I just leave the fixed 50mm on it, it's that good. The fixed aspect of the lens is also misleading - it by no means is just good at a very specific depth. It works at a variety of ranges, and because it's fixed, it's a lot easier to really get good at shooting top-notch shots, as you will have less variables to worry about.

Plus, it's THE best lens for most common and treasured uses of amateur photogs, which is portraits and portrait-range shots - even top pros will use this exact lens, for good reason. Another side benefit - it looks' normal size' on a dSLR, unlike a zoom which tends to stick out a bit, even if it's not a big zoom.

I could readily get rid of all my lenses except this 50/1.4 lens. I would NOT be happy if you let me keep all my lenses but made me give up that one lens.
User avatar
pennstater2005
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:50 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by pennstater2005 »

DaftInvestor wrote:
pennstater2005 wrote:
tibbitts wrote:I'm very surprised at the willingness to settle for 18-200 when we now have 16-300 technology in a not-that-much-bigger (and more importantly still single-lens) package. Also you get the 6yr warranty and 3-day repair with the 16-300 (which I've used on other Tamron products, and it really has been 3 days for me.) From what I've read the Nikon 18-300 has a little edge in performance on the long end, but you have to live with the heftier price tag, and without that 2mm on the wide side. Is it the Nikon brand that's swaying people, or some other factor?
I understand your reasoning for the length but the difference between 16 and 18mm will be nearly unnoticeable. Take a picture at each of these focal lengths or any two focal lengths 2mm apart. You won't squeeze in an extra person with that, maybe an arm if you're lucky.
When you get down under 18mm, 2mm it starts becoming more noticeable. 2mm might not be noticeable once you are at 20mm and above - but as you approach the lower end there is more and more difference. I see a notice-able difference between 16 and 18 (and there is a HUGE difference between 12 and 14). There is a tool here that illustrates this:
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learni ... arison.php
I was speaking more to the OP a needs I guess. Someone looking to point and shoot will be hard pressed to see a noticeable difference between 16 and 18mm. I've seen the difference and unless you are a photo bug it's not a lot. Between 12-14mm that I'll agree with. Me saying any two focal lengths wasn't accurate.
Last edited by pennstater2005 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments.” – Earl Wilson
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

lightheir wrote:Plus, it's THE best lens for most common and treasured uses of amateur photogs, which is portraits and portrait-range shots - even top pros will use this exact lens, for good reason.
:) You mean top pros would not rather have the 85 mm f/1.2 lens instead? I'm shocked! Oh, wait a minute. Canon makes that lens, but not Nikon. Never mind.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
FandangoDave5010
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 7:34 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by FandangoDave5010 »

On a recent visit, I gave my daughter my Nikon 18-200 zoom lens. I replaced it with the 18-300 lens. In my opinion, the new lens was not much of an upgrade. For the money, the 18-200 is the better buy and lighter.

Because size matters, 99% of my photos are taken with a (very small) Canon PowerShot. Putting the pictures through Photoshop Elements or IPhoto in my MacBook, it is hard to say which camera takes better snapshots.
User avatar
Topic Author
RooseveltG
Posts: 705
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:56 pm
Location: The Rust Belt

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by RooseveltG »

As the OP, I am considering both options (single lens vs lighter zoom).

If you carry one lens (and I am getting lazier as I get older), is there much "practical" difference between a 35mm lens at f/1.8G vs 1.4G? The price doubles for the faster lens.

Thanks.

Roosevelt.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

RooseveltG wrote:If you carry one lens (and I am getting lazier as I get older), is there much "practical" difference between a 35mm lens at f/1.8G vs 1.4G? The price doubles for the faster lens.
No, I don't think so. The 35 mm is too short for low-light in-a-gym sports photography anyways. And a lens used at f/1.4 to f/1.8 will have quite a narrow depth of field. That's great if you want something to "pop" out of the background, but your camera and technique had better make sure your subject is in focus. At f/1.4 you might have eyes in sharp focus but the tip of the nose and the back of the ears might be out of focus.

Here is a thread with photos showing depth of field when we discussed lenses a while ago:
viewtopic.php?t=77610
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

FandangoDave5010 wrote:On a recent visit, I gave my daughter my Nikon 18-200 zoom lens. I replaced it with the 18-300 lens. In my opinion, the new lens was not much of an upgrade. For the money, the 18-200 is the better buy and lighter.

Because size matters, 99% of my photos are taken with a (very small) Canon PowerShot. Putting the pictures through Photoshop Elements or IPhoto in my MacBook, it is hard to say which camera takes better snapshots.
Either you're doing all infinite-depth landscape type shots, or you're completely missing out on the beautiful 'bokeh' depth of field effects for portraits if you're getting the same results with a Powershot point and shoot compared to an SLR. The powershot takes great all-focused infinite depth shots, but there is no contest in portraits or similar depth shots when compared to an dSLR with a properly set depth to get lovely bokeh.
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by surfstar »

OP wanted a zoom, single lens for travel. Lightweight preferred. Self-admitted to being a point and shoot guy.

Why is anyone recommending fixed, bright, portrait lenses?

I will continue to talk to myself in left field over here, muttering, "maybe he should just buy a point and shoot camera, for point and shoot use"

:oops:


akin to asking for advice on a new work truck and people saying he should buy a corvette because its faster.
:oops:


Internet forums, where everyone is a photography maven.
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by Gort »

The Nikon 18-200 lens is rated 4.5 stars (out of 5) by 901 individual reviewers (that's huge) at B&H Photo website. It's an outstanding go anywhere type of lens.
Luke Duke
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:44 am
Location: Texas

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by Luke Duke »

The AF-S DX NIKKOR18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR has worked well for me. I own some prime lenses, a longer zoom and occasionally rent a 70-200 f/2.8, but I still take 90+% of my pics with the 18-105mm. I wouldn't want to haul around anything bigger or heavier for an extended period of time.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

If RooseveltG's current 35 mm lens is f/2.8, f/1.8 or better, then I think he will be disappointed in a zoom lens which is slower with just f/3.5 or worse.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
Luke Duke
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:44 am
Location: Texas

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by Luke Duke »

livesoft wrote:If RooseveltG's current 35 mm lens is f/2.8, f/1.8 or better, then I think he will be disappointed in a zoom lens which is slower with just f/3.5 or worse.
Doubtful. The OP probably leaves his camera in A or P mode and "points and clicks". There's nothing wrong with that if it suits his needs, but the person that does that is not likely to notice a stop or two difference in a lens.
Luke Duke
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:44 am
Location: Texas

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by Luke Duke »

surfstar wrote:OP wanted a zoom, single lens for travel. Lightweight preferred. Self-admitted to being a point and shoot guy.

Why is anyone recommending fixed, bright, portrait lenses?

I will continue to talk to myself in left field over here, muttering, "maybe he should just buy a point and shoot camera, for point and shoot use"

:oops:


akin to asking for advice on a new work truck and people saying he should buy a corvette because its faster.
:oops:


Internet forums, where everyone is a photography maven.
Agreed.
People that are suggesting $1500 professional lenses and f/1.4 primes seem to have neglected to read the original post:
RooseveltG wrote:I have a Nikon D5100 camera with a 35 mm lens. I would like to travel with a single zoom lens (leaving the 35 mm behind) that would work in most situations and is not too heavy. Any recommendations for those of us who like to just point and shoot?

Thanks in advance.

Roosevelt.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

RooseveltG wrote:The price is not an issue. […]

Thanks.

Roosevelt.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

surfstar wrote:OP wanted a zoom, single lens for travel. Lightweight preferred. Self-admitted to being a point and shoot guy.

Why is anyone recommending fixed, bright, portrait lenses?

I will continue to talk to myself in left field over here, muttering, "maybe he should just buy a point and shoot camera, for point and shoot use"

:oops:


akin to asking for advice on a new work truck and people saying he should buy a corvette because its faster.
:oops:


Internet forums, where everyone is a photography maven.

Have you used a portrait lens? It is not just limited to portraits - it takes extremely good photos in the vast majority of situations.
grayfox
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by grayfox »

TomatoTomahto wrote:Grayfox, is your camera FX or DX? That 28-300 is interesting, but with a DX camera (as OP has), I'd probably opt for the 18-200.

Nice lens, and maybe I would like to travel with it in place of my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, but then what would I do for exercise? Something to consider.
FX (Nikon D700). For a DX camera, I would choose something equivalent like Nikon 18-200mm VR II
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Grayfox, going OT for a second (but not alone in this :)), the D700 gets my vote for most ground-breaking Nikon body in recent memory. I refuse to sell mine, but might one day give it to a deserving kid.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

lightheir wrote:
surfstar wrote:OP wanted a zoom, single lens for travel. Lightweight preferred. Self-admitted to being a point and shoot guy.

Why is anyone recommending fixed, bright, portrait lenses?

I will continue to talk to myself in left field over here, muttering, "maybe he should just buy a point and shoot camera, for point and shoot use"

:oops:


akin to asking for advice on a new work truck and people saying he should buy a corvette because its faster.
:oops:


Internet forums, where everyone is a photography maven.

Have you used a portrait lens? It is not just limited to portraits - it takes extremely good photos in the vast majority of situations.

Again, I have a zoom lens that covers the full range, and I would STILL choose to take the fixed 50 in most typical situations save for if I was specifically taking the majority of my shots at long-range zoom (like birdwatching).

Most amateur photogs (and esp new ones to dSLR) will not even be able to get close to the best functionality out of a zoom lens - if you aren't already proficient at setting correct focal lengths on the camera with a fixed lens to get the right depth effects you want, adding the complexity of zoom factor onto it just makes it even harder. I say this from personal experience - my photos from when I switched to a fixed 50mm lens are noticeably better than my earlier zoom lens days, where I did the typical noob thing and overrelied on using the zoom to compensate for my lack of knowledge of depth and framing.
Bertie
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:45 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by Bertie »

I own the Nikon D5100, and like it a lot. I don't use it for a travel camera, but if I wanted to—and wanted only one lens—I'd get the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 (35mm equivalent = ~24-127). Other than the 35mm (which you own), it's the best DX lens Nikon makes. If I wanted a bit more at the long end, I'd get the 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (35mm equivalent = ~27-157). If you do any interior photography at all, you'll find the extra 2mm on the 16-85 pretty useful—it doesn’t sound like much, but if you’re shooting in tight spaces it’s really useful. I’d recommend getting one of those two zoom lens, but also carrying your 35mm along for you when you want a smaller camera to carry (zooms add a lot of bulk) or really need the f/1.8 for low light work. I have both the 35mm and a 50mm, and I'd carry just the 35mm instead of the 50mm if I were traveling (smaller, probably a more useful focal length if you're shooting indoors).

However, I find this camera too big and bulky for a travel camera. So last November I went through a similar process for myself, and decided to get an Olympus mirrorless (the OM-D E-M5) with 3 lens. Great quality lens and pictures. And the bulk for the camera and all 3 lenses is less than the D5100 with a zoom lens alone. But I wouldn’t recommend that for you—the camera really is designed for someone who wants to fiddle with things, rather than point-and-shoot.

I’d recommend the Sony DSC-RX10. This comes with a fixed zoom lens that’s a beauty: a Zeiss f/2.8 lens that’s the 35mm equivalent of ~24-200mm. Cost is about $1K. There’s a new version coming out that supposedly has better video and other goodies, but I don’t know any details about it. I should say I don’t own this camera, although I thought long and hard about getting it as a travel camera. But because I enjoy photography as a hobby—and really do like to fiddle with the controls rather than let the camera do all the work—I decided for me the Olympus was the better deal.

This is more expensive than buying a new lens, and not what you asked. But for your purpose—travel (where bulk is important), ease of use, and high quality pictures—either the Sony or an equivalent camera would be a better solution.

BTW, I’d drop by a good camera store (not a Best Buy—an actual camera store) and talk to the sales people. And handle the different lenses on your camera to see just how big they are. And handle the Sony or similar cameras to see if your hands fit, you like the way the controls work, etc. I think seeing the lenses/cameras would help you make up your mind a lot more quickly.
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by surfstar »

The Sony DSC-RX10, seems like a great option for those who need dSLR-like quality and a wide ranging zoom for travel.

Of course the small RX100 is also highly touted.

I still believe for general travel, where photography is not the focus (ha!), a small travel zoom is much more enjoyable, allowing one to experience wherever it is that they are going and still capture memories along the way.

"The best camera, is the one you happen to be carrying right now."
User avatar
ray.james
Posts: 1902
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:08 am

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by ray.james »

surfstar wrote:The Sony DSC-RX10, seems like a great option for those who need dSLR-like quality and a wide ranging zoom for travel.

Of course the small RX100 is also highly touted.

I still believe for general travel, where photography is not the focus (ha!), a small travel zoom is much more enjoyable, allowing one to experience wherever it is that they are going and still capture memories along the way.

"The best camera, is the one you happen to be carrying right now."
I am thinking of getting the Rx100 for the past few months. When I go on hikes/weekend trips, I don't want to carry the DSLR anymore. Probably my passion for photography wasn't as much as it used to be.
When in doubt, http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79939
AboutTime
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:21 am

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by AboutTime »

I would recommend looking through some of your most recent photos. What percent are close ups of people & objects? grand vistas? photos of action that is somewhat distant from you? Based upon that you now know how you view the world, your shooting style, and the zoom range you should look for.

When we walked across England, my single lens was an 18-200 on the old D70. The pictures were plenty sharp to print. I was able to capture both the grand vistas and photos of the people we encountered.

Finally, I can't find the quote, but I remember a current day master photographer saying something like, "Today 100% of the equipment is better than 90% of the photographers". So I wonder why bogleheads would assume that as photographers they are likely to out perform the average photographer over the long term. :wink:
User avatar
gatorman
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:35 am
Location: The Swamp

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by gatorman »

The 18-200 VRII is probably your best bet. If you wanted to go a little faster, the 35-70 f/2.8 is a great lens and is available at a reasonable price on ebay. But you will lose everything below 35mm and beyond 70mm (52.5-105mm 35mm equivalent). Also, it is quite heavy for its size and does not have VR. Another alternative is the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. The optics are probably a tad better than the 18-200. It's also quite light and compact, but does not have VR and again you lose at both the wide and telephoto ends. It is very reasonably priced on ebay.

You can find reviews here for many older zooms:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html
Bjorn Rorslett, the reviewer, is a very good photographer and I think you can rely on his reviews. He rates both the 35-70 and 28-105 as pro quality glass. I own both and agree with his assessment.

Whatever you decide on, you will be making some compromises. You just need to understand what they are.

gatorman
Last edited by gatorman on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

AboutTime wrote:I would recommend looking through some of your most recent photos. What percent are close ups of people & objects? grand vistas? photos of action that is somewhat distant from you? Based upon that you now know how you view the world, your shooting style, and the zoom range you should look for.

When we walked across England, my single lens was an 18-200 on the old D70. The pictures were plenty sharp to print. I was able to capture both the grand vistas and photos of the people we encountered.

Finally, I can't find the quote, but I remember a current day master photographer saying something like, "Today 100% of the equipment is better than 90% of the photographers". So I wonder why bogleheads would assume that as photographers they are likely to out perform the average photographer over the long term. :wink:
Actually, if you look in the photo archives of almost all non-dSLR users looking to upgrade, the vast majority of photos will match exactly with what a fixed 50mm lens takes best. From landscapes to portraits to things in between, and the photos from the 50mm will be sharper, clearer, and much better in low light than any zoom lens for the vast majority of those 'typical' shots.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by midareff »

The best one lens for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Oly, etc., would be in the an 18-200 range which both Canon and Nikon have. Fuji has an 18-135 for that area. On APS-C, which it seems you are using, it covers an effective Full Frame equivalent range of 28 to 300 or so mm. It is the best one lens solution to varied needs and has some drawbacks inherent in a lens fits all situation.

On the other hand it is a great starting place for a novice to low intermediate SLR user. When you develop you interestes further you will see what your interests are and what suits your needs better.
EHEngineer
Posts: 1085
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:35 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by EHEngineer »

Roosevelt - Have you considered an iPhone?

I have a Nikon FX system with F/1.4 primes and F/2.8 zooms, and I've rented $10,000 lenses too. The camera that I use most is my iPhone. It's always there, always charged, easy to carry, has good color reproduction, and it has video with great auto-focus & stabilization. DSLRs are a waste of time for capturing everyday life. The are big, clumsy, and take a while to setup.

If you want to spend a lot and carry a lot, go ahead and buy a DSLR with a normal zoom or fixed prime. I have those, but I prefer the iPhone.

Best,
EHEngineer
Or, you can ... decline to let me, a stranger on the Internet, egg you on to an exercise in time-wasting, and you could say "I'm probably OK and I don't care about it that much." -Nisiprius
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by tibbitts »

midareff wrote:The best one lens for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Oly, etc., would be in the an 18-200 range which both Canon and Nikon have. Fuji has an 18-135 for that area. On APS-C, which it seems you are using, it covers an effective Full Frame equivalent range of 28 to 300 or so mm. It is the best one lens solution to varied needs and has some drawbacks inherent in a lens fits all situation.

On the other hand it is a great starting place for a novice to low intermediate SLR user. When you develop you interestes further you will see what your interests are and what suits your needs better.
I still don't get the love for 18-200 when 16-300 and 18-300s are out there and just not that much bigger/heavier. I can see arguing, for example, that the lower fringing problems with the 18-300 sigma would make it preferable vs. the tamron for some people, or even people preferring the 18-300 nikon because of what might be a slight edge in overall performance - or just that it's a nikon. But there's a big difference between a 300mm equivalent (200mm) and 450mm (300mm) and hardly any disadvantage to the extra range.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

I think the love for the 18-200 mm comes from it being free to the OP.

And I'm still voting for an f/2.8 or better lens. Blurring things out of the depth of field is an important technique that even point-and-shoot folks can use. Some of the P&S cameras do have such lenses.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

tibbitts wrote:
midareff wrote:The best one lens for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Oly, etc., would be in the an 18-200 range which both Canon and Nikon have. Fuji has an 18-135 for that area. On APS-C, which it seems you are using, it covers an effective Full Frame equivalent range of 28 to 300 or so mm. It is the best one lens solution to varied needs and has some drawbacks inherent in a lens fits all situation.

On the other hand it is a great starting place for a novice to low intermediate SLR user. When you develop you interestes further you will see what your interests are and what suits your needs better.
I still don't get the love for 18-200 when 16-300 and 18-300s are out there and just not that much bigger/heavier. I can see arguing, for example, that the lower fringing problems with the 18-300 sigma would make it preferable vs. the tamron for some people, or even people preferring the 18-300 nikon because of what might be a slight edge in overall performance - or just that it's a nikon. But there's a big difference between a 300mm equivalent (200mm) and 450mm (300mm) and hardly any disadvantage to the extra range.
Weight, price, and photo quality. Sure, the differences are small, but for example, I can easily tell the superior sharpness and superior bokeh effects (much superior, actually) of my prime 50mm lens compared to my 18-200 Tamron, even at the exact same settings. I was wondering why my results always looked 'not quite' as good as what I saw in the magazines, until I went to the prime, and it was really 'ok, THERE it is!'

I never thought I'd be the kind of person who cared enough about that level of detail, but when I saw my friend's fixed lens photos compared to my zoom, despite no flash and same camera body, and no special techniques (mostly casuals and portrait-type stuff) the first thing I thought was "why are his photos slightly better?"

The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

It's time to start posting the same photo subject taken with different lenses and possibliy cameras.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
kjvmartin
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:57 am

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by kjvmartin »

If the zoom offered the same quality as a prime lens, they wouldn't need to make prime lenses anymore. A professional photographer mentor of mine said two things changed her photography for the better #1 her 50mm, and #2 going full manual.

Mike
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

kjvmike wrote:If the zoom offered the same quality as a prime lens, they wouldn't need to make prime lenses anymore. A professional photographer mentor of mine said two things changed her photography for the better #1 her 50mm, and #2 going full manual.

Mike
I'm not even close to a pro photog, but those two changes, in that exact order, was the same game-changer for me in terms of dSLR photography. Prior to making that switch, I used the dSLR like a point and shoot, and used the zoom to 'fix' my mistakes, which results in pictures that are ok, but certainly not pro quality.

It's not hard either - it really is dSLR-101. The zoom lens actually makes it much harder to learn how to maximize a dSLR, as you're constantly messing with the zoom instead of the things you really should be worrying about.
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by tibbitts »

lightheir wrote:
tibbitts wrote:
midareff wrote:The best one lens for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Oly, etc., would be in the an 18-200 range which both Canon and Nikon have. Fuji has an 18-135 for that area. On APS-C, which it seems you are using, it covers an effective Full Frame equivalent range of 28 to 300 or so mm. It is the best one lens solution to varied needs and has some drawbacks inherent in a lens fits all situation.

On the other hand it is a great starting place for a novice to low intermediate SLR user. When you develop you interestes further you will see what your interests are and what suits your needs better.
I still don't get the love for 18-200 when 16-300 and 18-300s are out there and just not that much bigger/heavier. I can see arguing, for example, that the lower fringing problems with the 18-300 sigma would make it preferable vs. the tamron for some people, or even people preferring the 18-300 nikon because of what might be a slight edge in overall performance - or just that it's a nikon. But there's a big difference between a 300mm equivalent (200mm) and 450mm (300mm) and hardly any disadvantage to the extra range.
Weight, price, and photo quality. Sure, the differences are small, but for example, I can easily tell the superior sharpness and superior bokeh effects (much superior, actually) of my prime 50mm lens compared to my 18-200 Tamron, even at the exact same settings. I was wondering why my results always looked 'not quite' as good as what I saw in the magazines, until I went to the prime, and it was really 'ok, THERE it is!'

I never thought I'd be the kind of person who cared enough about that level of detail, but when I saw my friend's fixed lens photos compared to my zoom, despite no flash and same camera body, and no special techniques (mostly casuals and portrait-type stuff) the first thing I thought was "why are his photos slightly better?"

The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Nobody will dispute that fixed focal length lenses are, generally, better performing than zooms. Or that shorter-range zooms (from the same era) generally outperform longer-range zooms. Or that the difference is more noticeable on a newer body with 24mp, vs. an older one with 6mp.

Perhaps equally importantly, from my experience with about a dozen zoom lenses, I believe that zooms have more manufacturing sample variation than fixed focal length lenses. Many purchasers aren't interested in discriminating between design limitations and poor assembly, so when someone says they replaced a zoom with a fixed focal length lens and got "sharper" results (as opposed to better bokeh due to a larger aperture, for example), that might be partly a case of having a poor copy of the zoom.

As for the 18-200 tamron, if it's the lens I'm thinking of, it's a ten-year-old design, and doesn't have vibration reduction, so it's not really comparable to modern superzooms.

The advantage of fixed focal length lenses is generally diminished by a couple of factors: stopping down, and emphasizing the center of the frame. I find that I want fairly good sharpness across the frame, but usually need apertures where sharpness is going to be diffraction-limited anyway, and yes, I usually use a tripod. Many other people are concerned more about center sharpness, particularly at the long end of the range, and in that respect zooms are more competitive with similar-grade fixed focal length lenses.

Obviously there are reasons why people spend many thousands of dollars for fixed focal length lenses, and the very longest focal lengths aren't generally where superzooms shine. But I see no evidence that 18-200mm lenses generally outperform 18-300mms (which are typically newer designs, incorporating newer optical designs, coatings, and VR.) So my comments were more about 18-200 vs. 16/18-300, than about comparisons with fixed focal length lenses, although I find it interesting that some people find zooms more disappointing than I do. I started with all fixed-focal-length lenses, and then went with a mix of fixed and zoom. Now I have (almost) only zooms, and haven't looked back.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

My Tamron 18-200 does have the current-gen vibration reduction or whatever they call it. It actually does work, too - if you turn it off, results at nontripod zoom are noticeably worse. But again, I almost always get a better picture, even with a digital zoom postprocessing, by using the 50mm fixed lens, than a nontripod zoom, unless it's a superzoom situation in which it's probably going to require a tripod anyway.

Again, there's nothing wrong per se with the 18-200 zoom; it's just the prime 50 is cheaper, lighter, outperforms the 18-200 zoom in 90+% of 'typical' photos (stuff that you would use a point and shoot for), is true pro-quality, and just as importantly, teaches you to correctly use the dSLR features (f-stop, depth of field, etc.) which will then make you a better photog even with a zoom lens. It's really a can't miss purchase - even if you do end up getting a $10k specialist zoom lens down the road, you will always come back to the prime 50 for portraits and other similar depth shots, even as a top professional.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Even on a DX body, don't you find the 50mm (75 effectively) too wide for portraits? I prefer somewhere between 105-135 or so with an FX camera. That's not to say that it's my way or wrong, but ...
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by tibbitts »

TomatoTomahto wrote:Even on a DX body, don't you find the 50mm (75 effectively) too wide for portraits? I prefer somewhere between 105-135 or so with an FX camera. That's not to say that it's my way or wrong, but ...
I think 85-105 was the traditional choice for portraits back in the 35mm era at least, so I assume that's true today for full frame - and that's not far from 50mm on APS. It seems that among pros, 70-200 2.8s are the most popular portrait lenses for full frame, vs. any of the single focal length choices. It's surprising to me that I see so many pros using those 70-200s for handheld natural-light portraits.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by midareff »

tibbitts wrote:
midareff wrote:The best one lens for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Oly, etc., would be in the an 18-200 range which both Canon and Nikon have. Fuji has an 18-135 for that area. On APS-C, which it seems you are using, it covers an effective Full Frame equivalent range of 28 to 300 or so mm. It is the best one lens solution to varied needs and has some drawbacks inherent in a lens fits all situation.

On the other hand it is a great starting place for a novice to low intermediate SLR user. When you develop you interestes further you will see what your interests are and what suits your needs better.
I still don't get the love for 18-200 when 16-300 and 18-300s are out there and just not that much bigger/heavier. I can see arguing, for example, that the lower fringing problems with the 18-300 sigma would make it preferable vs. the tamron for some people, or even people preferring the 18-300 nikon because of what might be a slight edge in overall performance - or just that it's a nikon. But there's a big difference between a 300mm equivalent (200mm) and 450mm (300mm) and hardly any disadvantage to the extra range.

On APS-C, 300 is 450-480 depending on the camera manufacturer's crop. When you get out that far you need top quality glass and at least 4 full stops of IS if you want sharp. Examples in the Canon line would be the 70-300 L IS or 100--400MKII L IS. There are lots of one covers all you can shoot slush with. The greater the lens range the lower the IQ is going to be. But then again, if you are looking to shoot thumb nails or 3 X 5's use your phone.
Last edited by midareff on Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by midareff »

lightheir wrote: The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Most of my photography is travel based. Despite the catch phrase "zoom with your feet", a fixed prime, be it 50, 35, 23mm .. whatever, is not ideal for travel. You can't zoom backwards with your feet through a building or off a cliff, and a 50 won't get the temple on that mountaintop over there and digital zoom only gets you so far, and at a reduction in IQ.
roflwaffle
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:08 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by roflwaffle »

With just one lens for your nikon, the 18-300 looks pretty good, but it's very pricey. I'd go with a 55-300 AF/VR, since it's the same size as the 18-300, along with a 18-55 AF/VR, which is much smaller and only ~2/3lb, but that would require carrying an extra lens around. If you have the cash though, the 18-300 is nice.
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

midareff wrote:
lightheir wrote: The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Most of my photography is travel based. Despite the catch phrase "zoom with your feet", a fixed prime, be it 50, 35, 23mm .. whatever, is not ideal for travel. You can't zoom backwards with your feet through a building or off a cliff, and a 50 won't get the temple on that mountaintop over there and digital zoom only gets you so far, and at a reduction in IQ.
Sure, if most of your photos are indeed requiring zoom, then a zoom lens is the right tool for you - I'd prefer a zoom in those situations you describe too. I however find that most of 'my' shots on travel aren't so demanding, but if they were, I'd def use a zoom. But I would DEFINITELY bring a tripod - as said, most of my zoom shots are just inferior, be it from motion blur or image distortion due to the zoom lens.

For my purposes, things like temples in a distance are easily done with the 50 prime - the superior sharpness makes up for the problems inherent with the zoom lens except at extreme distances. The 50 prime pictures are really that good.
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by tibbitts »

midareff wrote:
tibbitts wrote:
midareff wrote:The best one lens for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Oly, etc., would be in the an 18-200 range which both Canon and Nikon have. Fuji has an 18-135 for that area. On APS-C, which it seems you are using, it covers an effective Full Frame equivalent range of 28 to 300 or so mm. It is the best one lens solution to varied needs and has some drawbacks inherent in a lens fits all situation.

On the other hand it is a great starting place for a novice to low intermediate SLR user. When you develop you interestes further you will see what your interests are and what suits your needs better.
I still don't get the love for 18-200 when 16-300 and 18-300s are out there and just not that much bigger/heavier. I can see arguing, for example, that the lower fringing problems with the 18-300 sigma would make it preferable vs. the tamron for some people, or even people preferring the 18-300 nikon because of what might be a slight edge in overall performance - or just that it's a nikon. But there's a big difference between a 300mm equivalent (200mm) and 450mm (300mm) and hardly any disadvantage to the extra range.

On APS-C, 300 is 450-480 depending on the camera manufacturer's crop. When you get out that far you need top quality glass and at least 4 full stops of IS if you want sharp. Examples in the Canon line would be the 70-300 L IS or 100--400MKII L IS. There are lots of one covers all you can shoot slush with. The greater the lens range the lower the IQ is going to be. But then again, if you are looking to shoot thumb nails or 3 X 5's use your phone.
What I'm saying is that I don't see any evidence that, specifically, an 18-200 outperforms 16/18-300s, particularly at the long end, and that's the issue here. Everything else isn't equal - the 300s are generally (though not in every case) newer technology in terms of optical design, stabilization technology, and coatings. It tends to be that today, shorter-range lenses are more likely to be pro-grade models (higher-grade glass, weather sealing, etc.), while longer-range ones (18-200/300, etc.) aren't. This isn't the 70-200/300 range, where there are indeed separate consumer and pro-grade models offered.

Whether you need top quality glass depends on what you'll do with the image, but it's not like pro lenses give excellent results, and 18-300s produce "slush." There's a spectrum and they each fall somewhere. Back in the 35mm era, I used to think my Canon lenses and low-ISO film gave excellent results, until I saw 4x5ft prints made from 8x10 originals of similar subjects.

Stabilization isn't necessarily better on pro lenses, but resolution and aberration-resistance, especially at the long end, is indeed likely to be. Will results from the 18-300s be what most people, maybe even most pros, would consider "slush", though? Probably not, at least if the 18-300 is a good copy.
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by tibbitts »

lightheir wrote:
midareff wrote:
lightheir wrote: The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Most of my photography is travel based. Despite the catch phrase "zoom with your feet", a fixed prime, be it 50, 35, 23mm .. whatever, is not ideal for travel. You can't zoom backwards with your feet through a building or off a cliff, and a 50 won't get the temple on that mountaintop over there and digital zoom only gets you so far, and at a reduction in IQ.
Sure, if most of your photos are indeed requiring zoom, then a zoom lens is the right tool for you - I'd prefer a zoom in those situations you describe too. I however find that most of 'my' shots on travel aren't so demanding, but if they were, I'd def use a zoom. But I would DEFINITELY bring a tripod - as said, most of my zoom shots are just inferior, be it from motion blur or image distortion due to the zoom lens.

For my purposes, things like temples in a distance are easily done with the 50 prime - the superior sharpness makes up for the problems inherent with the zoom lens except at extreme distances. The 50 prime pictures are really that good.
I actually have a 50 prime, which is generally considered a relatively sharp model, and an assortment of zooms, and I don't see the degree of difference you're seeing, so I'm wondering if your zoom is a bad copy. I almost always use a tripod, at admittedly sometimes what may be diffraction-limited apertures, but the only place the prime obviously wins out is where the zooms can't compete - f2, for example.

I don't know that there is any difference in the effect of camera stabilization between equivalent focal lengths, whether the zoom is optical or digital - but I'd be interested if someone who knows for sure can comment.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by midareff »

lightheir wrote:
midareff wrote:
lightheir wrote: The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Most of my photography is travel based. Despite the catch phrase "zoom with your feet", a fixed prime, be it 50, 35, 23mm .. whatever, is not ideal for travel. You can't zoom backwards with your feet through a building or off a cliff, and a 50 won't get the temple on that mountaintop over there and digital zoom only gets you so far, and at a reduction in IQ.
Sure, if most of your photos are indeed requiring zoom, then a zoom lens is the right tool for you - I'd prefer a zoom in those situations you describe too. I however find that most of 'my' shots on travel aren't so demanding, but if they were, I'd def use a zoom. But I would DEFINITELY bring a tripod - as said, most of my zoom shots are just inferior, be it from motion blur or image distortion due to the zoom lens.

For my purposes, things like temples in a distance are easily done with the 50 prime - the superior sharpness makes up for the problems inherent with the zoom lens except at extreme distances. The 50 prime pictures are really that good.
A fixed lens is not ideal for travel. Most travel shots are in the =FF range of 24-70mm, unless some of it is shipboard where longer glass is needed, or you will be in closer quarters where a 10-24 might be needed (all APS-C). Having said that I don't mean Safari where I would consider 450mm FF= a minimum requirement. I guess we are going to agree to disagree on the 50 prime. We have a European trip coming up and I'm taking a 10-24 & 18-55 for use in cities, a 55-200 for use shipboard and may take a 35 F1.4 for night stuff. I have primes and zooms and they all fit different needs. I guess my experience with various consumer glass lenses and top pro glass is different than yours. When I shot Canon (both APS-C & FF) I had their 50mm f1.4 ... a highly overrated lens IMHO which doesn't get decently sharp until f 2.5 or better.
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by Gort »

RooseveltG wrote:I have a Nikon D5100 camera with a 35 mm lens. I would like to travel with a single zoom lens (leaving the 35 mm behind) that would work in most situations and is not too heavy. Any recommendations for those of us who like to just point and shoot?

Thanks in advance.

Roosevelt.
97 posts so far! Roosevelt, what are you going to do??
lightheir
Posts: 2684
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by lightheir »

tibbitts wrote:
lightheir wrote:
midareff wrote:
lightheir wrote: The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Most of my photography is travel based. Despite the catch phrase "zoom with your feet", a fixed prime, be it 50, 35, 23mm .. whatever, is not ideal for travel. You can't zoom backwards with your feet through a building or off a cliff, and a 50 won't get the temple on that mountaintop over there and digital zoom only gets you so far, and at a reduction in IQ.
Sure, if most of your photos are indeed requiring zoom, then a zoom lens is the right tool for you - I'd prefer a zoom in those situations you describe too. I however find that most of 'my' shots on travel aren't so demanding, but if they were, I'd def use a zoom. But I would DEFINITELY bring a tripod - as said, most of my zoom shots are just inferior, be it from motion blur or image distortion due to the zoom lens.

For my purposes, things like temples in a distance are easily done with the 50 prime - the superior sharpness makes up for the problems inherent with the zoom lens except at extreme distances. The 50 prime pictures are really that good.
I actually have a 50 prime, which is generally considered a relatively sharp model, and an assortment of zooms, and I don't see the degree of difference you're seeing, so I'm wondering if your zoom is a bad copy. I almost always use a tripod, at admittedly sometimes what may be diffraction-limited apertures, but the only place the prime obviously wins out is where the zooms can't compete - f2, for example.

I don't know that there is any difference in the effect of camera stabilization between equivalent focal lengths, whether the zoom is optical or digital - but I'd be interested if someone who knows for sure can comment.
That's the difference. I definitely get better (much better) results with a tripod. Not sure OP would want to tote a tripod or multiple lenses given he's asking for one all-around lens.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by midareff »

lightheir wrote:
tibbitts wrote:
lightheir wrote:
midareff wrote:
lightheir wrote: The 200-300 zoom range lens is pretty excessive for an all-around lens as well. At that level of zoom, you're sacrificing a lot of sharpness, and also really should be considering using a tripod for stability. I'd actually say the same for the 18-200, having bought that first myself and realizing now how much more useful and all-around the 50 prime is, but looks like most folks here are convinced that a zoom is what they want and need. Without a tripod, I actually suspect even my zoomed shots would look better had I gone with a 50 prime and just zoomed in on it with a digital zoom, due to the added blur from camera motion with that degree of zoom.
Most of my photography is travel based. Despite the catch phrase "zoom with your feet", a fixed prime, be it 50, 35, 23mm .. whatever, is not ideal for travel. You can't zoom backwards with your feet through a building or off a cliff, and a 50 won't get the temple on that mountaintop over there and digital zoom only gets you so far, and at a reduction in IQ.
Sure, if most of your photos are indeed requiring zoom, then a zoom lens is the right tool for you - I'd prefer a zoom in those situations you describe too. I however find that most of 'my' shots on travel aren't so demanding, but if they were, I'd def use a zoom. But I would DEFINITELY bring a tripod - as said, most of my zoom shots are just inferior, be it from motion blur or image distortion due to the zoom lens.

For my purposes, things like temples in a distance are easily done with the 50 prime - the superior sharpness makes up for the problems inherent with the zoom lens except at extreme distances. The 50 prime pictures are really that good.
I actually have a 50 prime, which is generally considered a relatively sharp model, and an assortment of zooms, and I don't see the degree of difference you're seeing, so I'm wondering if your zoom is a bad copy. I almost always use a tripod, at admittedly sometimes what may be diffraction-limited apertures, but the only place the prime obviously wins out is where the zooms can't compete - f2, for example.

I don't know that there is any difference in the effect of camera stabilization between equivalent focal lengths, whether the zoom is optical or digital - but I'd be interested if someone who knows for sure can comment.
That's the difference. I definitely get better (much better) results with a tripod. Not sure OP would want to tote a tripod or multiple lenses given he's asking for one all-around lens.
Interesting. Most current tele-zooms on the market today offer a minimum of 4 stops of IS. Last lens I bought is rated at 5. Shooting Canon out to 450mm =FF or Fuji to 300mm I have never had a stabilization issue. When I was using the Canon (APS-C) with their 70-300 L IS and a 1.4 adaptor (670mm) I did have to enable mirror lockup and use a tripod but that's not typical shooting. If you are having issues at those ranges I'd carefully check the camera menu and lens settings, maybe something got turned off by mistake.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Best "All Around Lens" for Nikon DSLRs?

Post by livesoft »

lightheir wrote:That's the difference. I definitely get better (much better) results with a tripod. Not sure OP would want to tote a tripod or multiple lenses given he's asking for one all-around lens.
Part of that is shutter-speed as you know. An f/2.8 lens will let one have a faster shutter-speed than an f/4 lens. But then, focus is more critical at f/2.8, too.

Some camera bodies will allow one to calibrate a lens focus on the sensor plane which could be different than the focus through the mirror. http://cameralightlens.com/newsblog/?p=264
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
Post Reply