only 1 lens, what would it be

Messages
121
Name
lee
Edit My Images
Yes
So, my mate has asked me this question, what would be the best lens to have for just a 1 lens set up,
he has a Nikon D610 and currently has a 24-70 f2.8 which he loves, but said hes often finding he needs a bit more reach,
I told him to get a 70-200 f2.8, but he said that he doesnt want to have hundreds of pounds in camera gear,
he like his photos but he just mainly takes family/portrait type photos, and takes it on walks and holidays, so a bit of everything really,
he said he likes good quality pictures that are nice and sharp, and good bokeh, I said, (you dont want much do you):LOL:
he was asking me about the Nikon 28-300mm lens and said he had read good reviews from ken Rockwell,
then he even mentioned maybe selling what he has and getting a Sony RX10 MK3,
I feel I need to pass this on to the experts, so here I am passing it on,

many thanks.

lee
 
Does he use Lightroom ?.

Easy enough to use the filter.

Soon tell him what his most used focal length is.

Cheers,
Dougie.

p.s. I have that lens also and would not be getting rid. Excellent for so many different purposes.
 
Last edited:
24-120 f4.

That's a good shout Bob. Seen a few in the forum for sale and been tempted at times. Have these focal lengths covered with quality Nikon lenses. Be useful when my girlfriend helps me out occasionally as second shooter on another body (D7200 or D700).

Cheers,
Dougie.
 
Last edited:
If it is to have a single lens then the 24-120/f4 is the best walk around lens on FX camerabodies
Nice range, good quality
I’ve used it with the D610 and D850 (as well as with DX cameras) and it works really well.
 
The 28-300mm is a fantastic do-it-all lens given it's zoom range (I use mine on a D750 when the aperture isn't a limitation). The 24-120mm/f4 is reckoned to be optically superior. All depends whether versatility is more important than fast apertures and pixel peeping.
 
If he prefers long to wide but doesn’t wish to drop in image quality then the Tamron 35-150 f2.8/4 is a well worth consideration.

Alternatively an rx10 is also a great option.
 
The 28-300mm is a fantastic do-it-all lens given it's zoom range (I use mine on a D750 when the aperture isn't a limitation). The 24-120mm/f4 is reckoned to be optically superior. All depends whether versatility is more important than fast apertures and pixel peeping.
But then why invest in fullframe if you're going to throw away the "advantages" and just make it a big and heavy P&S
 
24-120 f4 would be my choice too (the earlier 24-120 is not a good lens). I'd also recommend the older 28-105, although it needs stopping down to f11-13 at the long end for best image quality. Bokeh won't be lovely with any zoom lens, and if that's a priority along with every-day usability then a Sigma ART 35 or 50 f1.4 would be my choice - you can do a lot of zooming just by cropping with a decently sharp lens in a way that's not possibly with most zooms.

FWIW Ken Rockwell's reviews are not to be taken seriously. There's only a few review sites I trust, with Optical Limits, Fred Miranda, Philip Reeve and http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html probably the most trustworthy IMO.
 
Had the 24-124 f4 on my D750.

I mostly use primes for indoor work, but when I go outdoors this is my go to lens as well. I use it on my D810, but didn't get it as a kit lens; I bought it separately due to good reviews. I am not disappointed - for the price it's a very good lens.
 
I previously used a cheap and cheerful Sigma 28-300mm on my Canon 5D which, for the £65 I spent on it, turned out to be a very good buy. This is about 1/4th of the original frame...

Rescue helicopter demonstration at Dawlish 5D_two 9551.JPG

A very great deal depends on whether you're a perfectionist or a pragmatist. I really don't care if details are a bit fuzzy but the picture shows what I want. Those who look at things differently will make different choices.
 
Last edited:
I love to see razor sharp images - wildlife particularly - My one lens would be my present wildlife lens Sony 200-600mm G lens

Les :)
 
Only one lens it would be 24-105L here... But I'd be upgrading to a 100Mpixel+ body as soon as humanly possible so I could "crop zoom" without too much pixelation... and using a crop body alongside the FF I have in the meantime.

Or if I'm only allowed one lens & one body - either the 35-350L or 28-300L... But I would be sad all the time.
 
Keep what he has and get the Sony compact for "other duties".
 
Isn't this the usual case of someone wanting a "do- it- all" lens. There is the Tamron 18-400mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD (Nikon Fit) Lens for around £550, but how good it is???
Problem is that lens is for DX cameras and he has FX camera so may not be the answer > I don't know
 
Last edited:
In a time when we're getting more and more range on superzooms, I'm tending to use primes. When I next travel I'll certainly take my Sony 24-105, but likely the 35 f2.8 and 55 f1.8 too
 
What a tough question. Of what I have it has to be the 24-70L 2.8 mk2. Top notch optic and a versatile range, though it's a big lump to carry. Otherwise I never get bored with a 50mm prime. Assuming I go RF, which I certainly will at some stage, maybe the 24-105 for more reach.

@ancient_mariner I agree with your comment re Rockwell, I'm similarly unimpressed with the Northrups. I'll check out Philip Reeve, I've never heard of him. Photography Life is a particular favourite of mine.

is that 24-70L lens for canon and he is asking about one for nikon
 
is that 24-70L lens for canon and he is asking about one for nikon
Both Sigma and Tamron make their lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts. They usually cover Sony as well. I currently use the Tamron 16-300 on my Sony A65 and find it suits my needs very well indeed...

Architectural detail at St Bridget's nursery on the A3076 at Clyst St Mary A65  DSC02254.JPG
 
I too have a Tamron 16-300, it has been my only lens on D5300 for a few years to get me back into SLR photography.
 
The lens I use the most on my D810 is the 24-120mm/f4, such clear images, I also have a 105 macro an 18 to 35 wide angle plus a 150 to 600 and I would say if I could only use one it would be The 24-120mm/f4
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Doesn't really ansver the Q
The OP asked opinions about the 28-300. So I gave mine - from experience.

But I'll still bite.:ROFLMAO:

I never said a 28-300 is the answer for everyone in every situation nor that it would be for the OP, but it can have a time and place for some. I happen to be one of those people.

You don't throw away all the advantages of full frame with the 28-300 - large sensor, low light/high ISO performance, any benefits of the body's controls, interchangeable lenses.










(Note to self - stop clicking that 'show ignored content' link.)

Please put me on your ignore list so we can ignore each other. :LOL:
 
I never said a 28-300 is the answer for everyone in every situation nor that it would be for the OP, but it can have a time and place for some. I happen to be one of those people.
Quite right. You're either a superzoom sort of person or you're not. I am (some of the time). :naughty:

Stilt dancer in Princesshay Exeter A65 DSC00353.JPG
 
Mine would be the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 as I mostly now do wildlife.
 
35mm f/2 (on apsc)...
'cos 18k of the photos in my catalogue are with this, the next highest (18-55 f/2.8-4) comes in at just over 2k.

To tie this back to @burleyviking 's post, 90% of my shots are portraits, but I do also use it as a general lens - This fits their friend's requirement.
Of course, their mileage may vary.
 
thanks for all your replies chaps, im going to tell him my finding are inconclusive:giggle:
but will relay all your recommendations,the 24-120mm lens sounds ok, might buy one myself.
thanks.

lee
 
(Note to self - stop clicking that 'show ignored content' link.)

Please put me on your ignore list so we can ignore each other.

Never, ever click on 'show ignored content'. ;) You're unlikely to learn anything to your advantage, and it's more likely to provide knowledge you won't enjoy. I have just 3 people on ignore - 1 because they put images in critique sections and NEVER respond to critique, the other 2 because they're troublemakers and stirrers.

The OP asked opinions about the 28-300. So I gave mine - from experience.

Superzooms are very marmite. I've taken some pictures I've really liked with an 18-250 and an old Sigma 28-200, however *for me* I never really feel happy with the image quality, but plainly they work well for some.
 
The OP asked opinions about the 28-300. So I gave mine - from experience.

But I'll still bite.:ROFLMAO:

I never said a 28-300 is the answer for everyone in every situation nor that it would be for the OP, but it can have a time and place for some. I happen to be one of those people.

You don't throw away all the advantages of full frame with the 28-300 - large sensor, low light/high ISO performance, any benefits of the body's controls, interchangeable lenses.










(Note to self - stop clicking that 'show ignored content' link.)

Please put me on your ignore list so we can ignore each other. :LOL:
No I won't. I can handle different opinions. Just asked cause I didn't understand. Hmm apparantly I cant ignore myself :thinking: :LOL:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I absolutely had to have one lens on a Nikon FX DSLR, then the 24-120 would be it. It's a good all rounder.

I'm considering the 24-200 Z for the same reason. Although it's quite pricey so will wait for the cost to come down.
 
35mm f/2 (on apsc)...
'cos 18k of the photos in my catalogue are with this, the next highest (18-55 f/2.8-4) comes in at just over 2k.

To tie this back to @burleyviking 's post, 90% of my shots are portraits, but I do also use it as a general lens - This fits their friend's requirement.
Of course, their mileage may vary.
Agreed, both of those would work for me. Having both the f/1,4 and f/2 versions of the 35mm the f/2 has becomes my grab to go to make snap shots and for when photography is not the main concern. It's main weakness to me is it's crap performance on extension tubes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another for the 24-120. Bought it to go on my D600, as my old Sigma 28-70, whilst being a decent enough lens, didn't have enough range. I'm very fussy about lens sharpness, but the 24-120 doesn't disappoint. I'm actually quite surprised with it's performance. It even has reasonable 'bokeh' at the long end at f4. Near enough the perfect walk-around lens. I've never been a fan of 'superzoom' lenses as they are invariably too heavily compromised for my liking; too much distortion, too small apertures at the long end, not sharp enough and most never quite seem to achieve the stated focal length range, when compared to primes at each end. The 24-120 manages to remain a decent zoom lens, without suffering from the issues longer range zooms have. The only downside is the size, and the large 77mm filters are bloody expensive.

I'm considering the 24-200 Z for the same reason. Although it's quite pricey so will wait for the cost to come down.

The 24-105 will be far more my thing, although I do wish it was a 24-120. I can live without the long end, if it's only going to be at a small aperture. F4 is small enough for me.
 
I previously used a cheap and cheerful Sigma 28-300mm on my Canon 5D which, for the £65 I spent on it, turned out to be a very good buy.

A very great deal depends on whether you're a perfectionist or a pragmatist. I really don't care if details are a bit fuzzy but the picture shows what I want. Those who look at things differently will make different choices.

I had one of those, they make a great day out and holiday lens.
 
Back
Top