A&P Nikon Crew: If you could have a single lens, what would it be

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by pl_silverado, Oct 7, 2008.

  1. pl_silverado

    pl_silverado OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly
    Lets say, for general walk around use while traveling. I tend to travel quite a bit, and always have my camera with me, but i don't wanna haul around a dedicated bag filled with extra lenses and stuff.

    I have the D90 with 18-105 Kit Lens. I have no problem selling it to buy something better, maybe the 18-200?? It would be nice to have some greater zoom capability.

    What would you do?

    Don't get me wrong, i love the versatility of a DSLR, but sometimes carrying 2-3 extra lenses is just not feasible.

    I'm just trying to figure out whats good for those grab and go moments, so you can leave the worries about which lens to use behind and go shoot.

    Im ordering a 50mm f1.8 too, so i'll have that with me when im traveling.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2008
  2. NetChemica

    NetChemica OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    10,288
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Canon G10

    Why do you want a DSLR if you only want one lens?
     
  3. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I can only have one on a DX body, Nikkor 17-55 2.8.
     
  4. pl_silverado

    pl_silverado OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly

    I sold my Canon G9, and bought a D90...


    I never said i want only one lens, i just want one for when i travel or go backpacking. The less shit i have to bring along the better.
     
  5. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Depends what you are looking for. The image quality of the 18-105 and 18-200 VR aren't going to be as good as a 24-70 or 70-200. But they are relatively small and convenient, so I'd probably choose one of those that you listed if you want a "all around" lens.

    But if you want really nice sharp pictures all across the board you will need several lenses.
     
  6. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    :werd:

    the best part of having a dslr is having multiple specialized lens that do different things.

    I'd ditch the 18-105 and get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and ideally, the 80-200mm 2.8. Less than ideally would be the 70-300 VR.
     
  7. pl_silverado

    pl_silverado OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly
    Well, in theory i could keep the 18-105 i have, and buy something else for when i want to be creative :bigthumb:
     
  8. pl_silverado

    pl_silverado OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly
    As far as the 80-200 goes, is the 70-200 f2.8 VR worth the extra $ 700?
     
  9. Tedrzz

    Tedrzz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    that is pretty subjective. some people have used their 80-200's for years without a complaint but i've owned the 70-200 for 2.5 years now and the VR has come in mega handy all across the board for me. but if i needed one lens for travel the 70-200 would definitely not be that lens. it's fucking huge, and fucking heavy. i'd stick with a 18-200 or if i could only travel with one lens it would be my 17-35 f/2.8
     
  10. xenon supra

    xenon supra OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    33,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for the win.

    Good luck finding one though :o
     
  11. FusionZ06

    FusionZ06 /\__/\__/\__0>

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine State
    18-200VR - anything else would be silly
     
  12. SenenCito

    SenenCito OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    15,530
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Nikon 24-70

    cause only people that don't care about quality would choose anything else (on an fx body)
     
  13. pl_silverado

    pl_silverado OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly
    I think im just going to hold off a bit, use my 18-105vr as a walk around and just buy 3 or 4 lenses when i sell my spare work truck. (trying to sell a diesel truck sure is hard these days)

    Nikon 70-200 2.8, 14-24 2.8, and 24-70 2.8 and maybe the fisheye too. :big grin:
    That purchase should have me covered for the rest of my life...but until then, i'll make do with what i have.

    I did buy the 50mm f1.8, it should be here wed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2008
  14. Sympathy

    Sympathy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,025
    Likes Received:
    81
    Keep the 18-105 if you want a "walk around" lens. I'll admit, there's times when i've been tempted to get a 18-200, but there's several less versatile lenses that are higher on my list (eg nikon 17-35, nikon 70-200 or the 80-200 afs).
    If you get the 18-200, you'll be happy with the range (even though it's not really 200mm), and you'll probably be happy with the image quality, until you try out primes, or some of the lenses I listed above.
     
  15. pl_silverado

    pl_silverado OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly

    lol, see post above yours! :bigthumb: :bigthumb:
     
  16. Sympathy

    Sympathy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,025
    Likes Received:
    81
    :rofl:
     
  17. Sympathy

    Sympathy OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,025
    Likes Received:
    81
    nikon 35-70 close enough? :o
     
  18. legendr34

    legendr34 Titanium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    4,433
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal
    85mm 1.4
     
  19. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    Lensbaby, duh.
     
  20. Hua

    Hua AZN photographer crew

    Joined:
    May 5, 2000
    Messages:
    2,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    17-55 f/2.8
     
  21. Girth

    Girth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    71,426
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Houston
    10-600mm f/1.4 VR Macro

    w/ out question. Walk around all day w/ that thing. :o
     
  22. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    God, I absolutely love that lens.
     
  23. NetChemica

    NetChemica OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    10,288
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    The only thing that bothers me about that lens is that the front element is 17 INCHES ACROSS!
     
  24. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    432mm filters...probably more expensive than D90 itself. :mamoru:
     
  25. NauticaX

    NauticaX OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,418
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Maryland
    18-200 would be my pick.
     

Share This Page