ART Nikon Crew: If you could have a single lens, what would it be

pl_silverado

OT Supporter
Feb 24, 2004
1,258
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:

xenon supra

OT Supporter
Feb 3, 2005
33,479
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.
 

jared_IRL

OT Supporter
Feb 12, 2006
21,172
Canon G10

Why do you want a DSLR if you only want one lens?

:werd:

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.

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.
 
TS
TS
pl_silverado

pl_silverado

OT Supporter
Feb 24, 2004
1,258
Philly
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.

Well, in theory i could keep the 18-105 i have, and buy something else for when i want to be creative :bigthumb:
 
TS
TS
pl_silverado

pl_silverado

OT Supporter
Feb 24, 2004
1,258
Philly
: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.

As far as the 80-200 goes, is the 70-200 f2.8 VR worth the extra $ 700?
 

Tedrzz

New Member
Jul 6, 2005
1,569
Brooklyn, NY
As far as the 80-200 goes, is the 70-200 f2.8 VR worth the extra $ 700?

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
 
TS
TS
pl_silverado

pl_silverado

OT Supporter
Feb 24, 2004
1,258
Philly
Nikon 24-70

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

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:

Sympathy

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2006
34,140
Well, in theory i could keep the 18-105 i have, and buy something else for when i want to be creative :bigthumb:

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.
 
TS
TS
pl_silverado

pl_silverado

OT Supporter
Feb 24, 2004
1,258
Philly
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.


lol, see post above yours! :bigthumb: :bigthumb:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
420
Guests online
61
Total visitors
481

Forum statistics

Threads
369,546
Messages
16,894,141
Members
86,874
Latest member
Anthony 74