Uncle Ken's DX dream team?

I suppose it depends on how many lenses you want, whether zooms or primes are a priority and if price is an issue.

I'm a big fan of the 12-24mm combined with a 35mm f/1.8 for low light/shallow DoF work (especially on video) and then the 17-55mm and 70-200mm for the rest.

But then again there's the 14-24mm f/2.8 for the wide end if you have the money, or something like a 14mm prime (which I use) if a fixed lens is preferred.

If Nikon were to create a 'perfect' set-up (IMO) is would be a 12-20/22mm f/2.8 with a very close-focussing distance of something like 2" from the front of the lens, then a 17-80mm f/2.8 as a replacement for the 17-55mm. I'd keep the 70-200mm, although a fastish (f/4 maybe?) 100-300/400mm would be good...

It's one of those 'how long is a piece of string?' subjects.... :)
 
It's Ken being deliberately provocative as usual.

Any Dream Team that replaces a standard range zoom with just a 35/1.8 would not work for me - or many other folks I suspect.
 
Everyones "dream team" will be different...

My own would be

18mm F2
35mm F2
60mm F2.4
85mm F1.8
300mm F4
 
HoppyUK said:
It's Ken being deliberately provocative as usual.
.
Click to expand...

yep - reminds me why i don't bother reading ken rockwell

incidentally my dream team would be a 17-55 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 for normal light , and a 35 / 50/ 85 f1.8 for low light
 
I was just wondering if people thought it was a good set up or left too many gaps but I think its the latter. The guy does seem to have his favorites but when something new rolls out its suddenly junk!

I think the lack of anything around the middle zoom range 18-55 except a 35mm prime is leaving a lot of shots missed.
 
An 18-55, 35 and 55-200 (plus a D60, or a D3100 when I get round to changing it) is what I use as my light weight travel kit, it covers 95% of shots I'd want to take so for me the KR DX DT makes a lot of sense.

My "proper" kit consists of a 16-35, 50 and 70-300 (with a D700) and I never find myself wanting more (except for an exotic long prime for some bird shots but they are few and far between).
 
Nawty said:
An 18-55, 35 and 55-200 (plus a D60, or a D3100 when I get round to changing it)
Click to expand...

With a d3100 that is my beginners stable. In my mind it gives me wide / walkabout, portrait / low light indoors, and a cheap but ok zoom.

I wouldnt call it a dream team, rather more a workable toolkit.
 
Ebilpirate said:
I wouldnt call it a dream team, rather more a workable toolkit.
Click to expand...

That's a good description :) like I said, it gives me 95% of what I need at a size and weight and cost that suits my requirements. Everyone's requirements are different so I only speak for myself but on the back of a D3100 (as opposed to my D60 which is limited in its ISO performance but still suffices for most occasions) it should be enough for pretty much everyone.

Granted I have some specialist lenses for the odd occasion and a whole full frame set up which I love and tend to take most places as I am young(ish) and fit enough to hulk around it's weight but I find a massive amount of charm in the 18-55, 35, 55-200 setup.
 
Nawty said:
An 18-55, 35 and 55-200 (plus a D60, or a D3100 when I get round to changing it) is what I use as my light weight travel kit, it covers 95% of shots I'd want to take so for me the KR DX DT makes a lot of sense.

My "proper" kit consists of a 16-35, 50 and 70-300 (with a D700) and I never find myself wanting more (except for an exotic long prime for some bird shots but they are few and far between).
Click to expand...

Your full frame kit pretty much match's the KR DX DT but in full frame sizes. I do always wonder if the bulky kit makes much difference to the average amateur or the basic stuff does the job more than well enough.

I have the 70-300 VR instead of the 55-200 on my D300 but it's bulky but then it suits the size of the D300 which isn't too far from the D700.

I think if i had smaller such as D3100/5100 the DX lens would be better for the smaller bodies.
 
Sure Uncle Ken's list is limited and very Ken-centric, but for an amateur hobbyist on a budget, they cover the average person's needs. Easy for me to say, since I have three of them and the Tamron equivalent of a fourth (I would like a 10-24 one day, or something similar).

I tend to take the view that when my abilities except that of my gear, and not the other way around, that is when I will upgrade (or take my family on holidays so I can take good pics with my cheaper gear).
 
Last edited:
Got to love KR's modesty:

"The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is spectacular, especially when you consider that it sells for only $200. Beware: when lenses this good and popular come out and I tell everyone, the price tends to rise for the first year or two, so get yours while you can."

The article is packed full of contradictions as well. Can't really argue with his particular selection but this is pretty subjective stuff and isn't necessarily what I'd choose.
 
I agree with his choice of 18-200 + 35. Cracking combo for travel. I carried that setup around Cuba in 35C+ heat for 3 weeks, and didn't regret not bringing other lenses. It's the convenience of a compact's focal lengths, but with much better IQ. Hurrah.

In general, though, I find KR's writing style to be grating. He's very keen to dimiss everyone else's opinion as hogwash and promote his own as the gospel truth. Which is not uncommon on the internet, but undermine's his credentials as a reviewer. I only use his site as a reliable source for data (size, weight, filter thread etc)!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top