Best "all round" lens

[rf134a]

What's the best all around lens at a reasonable price? I'm talking about taking your DSLR and a single lens on vacation type setting. It's nice having 5 lenses for different purpose at home, but lugging around those 5 lenses while on vacation is not practical.

I know that a high zoom lens will suffer from barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations at both ends but we're on vacation, so it won't matter much. Just getting the shot makes the distortion worthwhile.

I'm sure a lot of people have or will be picking up a DSLR in a few days, so I hope it helps everyone out.

[Kasakato]

I always bring my 10.5-300mm f/2.8 IF VR ED. :)

It depends where Im going. If Im going to be shooting tele (wildlife), its my Nikon 70-300; if its in close, fast action (on the street), its the 18-55; if its indoors (museums, etc), its the 50 1.8. If I want to cover my ass for anything, Id get the 18-200...not that Id really want to. All three of my lenses fit nicely into a backpack for longer trips or a shoulder pack for quick trips. I bring all three on all trips, and just take the one or two Ill need for the days events. I always pack the 50 in my pocket, along with the 18-55 or 70-300 mounted.

[SENSEI]

What's the best all around lens at a reasonable price? I'm talking about taking your DSLR and a single lens on vacation type setting. It's nice having 5 lenses for different purpose at home, but lugging around those 5 lenses while on vacation is not practical.

I know that a high zoom lens will suffer from barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations at both ends but we're on vacation, so it won't matter much. Just getting the shot makes the distortion worthwhile.

I'm sure a lot of people have or will be picking up a DSLR in a few days, so I hope it helps everyone out.

You're way of thinking may not apply to everyone. I would rather bring 5 different high-end lenses on a 3 day hike then have 1 less than mediocre lens. Some may think just getting a shot is worthwhile...I say, if I'm never going to get a chance to take the shot again, I'd rather do it properly the first time.

If all I wanted was to show that I was there with barrel distortion, crazy CA, screw it, it may never even end up in the vacation gallery anyways. Use a point and shoot then. Having a DSLR doesn't mean your shots are magically going to turn out better.

It is totally worth while to bring multiple lenses to do the right job. If you ask me, I'd rather bring a G10 or a Canon S5 before bringing a DSLR body and a 18-200 lens. But in the end, it all will depend on the photographer.

[jackwest]

I don't understand. Barrel Distortion, CA, are largely things of the past and my freeware converts my "cheapo" kit lens to L glass performance (+$2000).

Other things can be done with stitching, etc, to add field of view.

Crops and fish eyes aside, I don't know of any picture I've ever seen that could not have been taken identically with one kit lens.

[Kasakato]

I don't understand. Barrel Distortion, CA, are largely things of the past and my freeware converts my "cheapo" kit lens to L glass performance (+$2000).

Other things can be done with stitching, etc, to add field of view.

Crops and fish eyes aside, I don't know of any picture I've ever seen that could not have been taken identically with one kit lens.

Software does not turn f/5.6 into f/2.8. Theres always going to be a difference in bokeh, colour rendition, sharpness, etc. Distortion and CA are definite problems with kit lenses.

[djmr2]

Software does not turn f/5.6 into f/2.8. Theres always going to be a difference in bokeh, colour rendition, sharpness, etc. Distortion and CA are definite problems with kit lenses.

+1.56 my homie knows wut he's talking about.

[jackwest]

And? A $100 prime beats your f2.8 L glass in focal length...

Equipment reviews as seen on dpreview serve their purpose but in the real world, our modern equipment is 99% overkill.

Obsession with sharpness is seriously out of fashion in modern photographer. Focusing on pixels and sharpness is like being the autistic kid obsessed with obtuse facts instead of the big picture.

[Kasakato]

And? A $100 prime beats your f2.8 L glass in focal length...

Equipment reviews as seen on dpreview serve their purpose but in the real world, our modern equipment is 99% overkill.

Obsession with sharpness is seriously out of fashion in modern photographer. Focusing on pixels and sharpness is like being the autistic kid obsessed with obtuse facts instead of the big picture.

Whats your point? You cant simply compare the focal length of a $100 50mm prime vs $1200 17-55mm f/2.8 (I shoot Nikon ;) )

Sharpness is one component that makes up a lens. Theres also colour, speed, CA, build quality, distortion, etc that make a $100 lens differ from a $1200 lens. An excellent photographer can take excellent pictures with either lens, however the $1200 lens will take better looking pictures.

[jackwest]

And an Aston Martin is better than my BMW, but that doesn't make my car bad in any real sense. The point is these kind of focus on glass is misleading to beginners who think they are going to get ****** pictures unless they dish out $1000s on their gear.

[Kasakato]

And an Aston Martin is better than my BMW, but that doesn't make my car bad in any real sense. The point is these kind of focus on glass is misleading to beginners who think they are going to get ****** pictures unless they dish out $1000s on their gear.

If thats the message this thread projected, it wasn't intended. Most people will be happy with a kit lens and an all around lens. However, some people (see: us) notice little things in pictures others do not. We strive to remove these "little things" and produce the best image possible. Its all relative, some prefer an all around lens, others do not. That being said, expensive gear does not guarantee excellent pictures. It must also be coupled with an excellent photographer.

[Dr_luv]

An "all round" lens will definitely include some some trade offs as compared to having a specialized lens. Having said that, I tried a friends SAL16-105mm and it was really good. Pretty wide and has a good reach. There was some distortion on the wide end but nothing that some Photoshop can't take care of. As far as I know, the 15-105mm comes only as a kit lens and is not sold in Canada.

It is just slightly cheaper than the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm causing a dilemma.....

[Stock R]

I always bring my 10.5-300mm f/2.8 IF VR ED. :)


You had me there for a second! :lol:

[KorruptioN]

As far as I know, the 16-105mm comes only as a kit lens and is not sold in Canada.

Who told you that?

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&departmentId=10404&categoryId=11802&itemID=225928

I think I like the CZ16-80 a bit better.

[N_Raged]

I always bring my 10.5-300mm f/2.8 IF VR ED. :)
That's the old model. There's a new AF-S version out.

[Kasakato]

That's the old model. There's a new AF-S version out.

Gotta sell my old one then, it was a bit slow going from infinity to 0.25'. I guess the new one is ~$300 or so?

[CameraBill]

Software does not turn f/5.6 into f/2.8. Theres always going to be a difference in bokeh, colour rendition, sharpness, etc. Distortion and CA are definite problems with kit lenses.

I've never noticed them to be definite problems.

[frogger]

Next time I'm traveling to a dense urban area/city, then I'd probably try sticking with a "~normal" prime for the hell of it, say the 31mm f1.8.

If I go to a beach resort then I'd bring something relatively cheap like the kit lens.

[monty613]

something that covers the 17-50mm (or 17-55mm) range. you can get your wide angle shots, or zoom in for a portrait. i think most kit lenses w/ DSLRs come in this range given their versatility. what kind of camera do you own? do you have a kit lens that came with it?

the best piece of advice i got on RFD was to experiment as much as possible with your kit lens before going out and buying new lenses. you need to learn the limitations first to find out what you're looking for. not everybody needs a superzoom 18-400mm haha. for me - the kit lens range was perfect but it in lacked in many other areas (AF, max aperture, sharpness)

examples of xti kit lens range (i think it's an 18-55mm). i'm cringing looking at the EXIF because at the time i just used auto and the auto "modes".

18mm
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/9500/img0548vs6.jpg

25mm
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3892/img0750mz2.jpg

55mm
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/60/img0890hu9.jpg

[TenzoR]

Next time I'm traveling to a dense urban area/city, then I'd probably try sticking with a "~normal" prime for the hell of it, say the 31mm f1.8.

If I go to a beach resort then I'd bring something relatively cheap like the kit lens.

The closest I can think of is Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM ;)

[rf134a]

An "all round" lens will definitely include some some trade offs as compared to having a specialized lens. Having said that, I tried a friends SAL16-105mm and it was really good. Pretty wide and has a good reach. There was some distortion on the wide end but nothing that some Photoshop can't take care of. As far as I know, the 15-105mm comes only as a kit lens and is not sold in Canada.

It is just slightly cheaper than the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm causing a dilemma.....
It's good to know that 15/16mm zoom lenses exist.

something that covers the 17-50mm (or 17-55mm) range. you can get your wide angle shots, or zoom in for a portrait. i think most kit lenses w/ DSLRs come in this range given their versatility. what kind of camera do you own? do you have a kit lens that came with it?

the best piece of advice i got on RFD was to experiment as much as possible with your kit lens before going out and buying new lenses. you need to learn the limitations first to find out what you're looking for. not everybody needs a superzoom 18-400mm haha. for me - the kit lens range was perfect but it in lacked in many other areas (AF, max aperture, sharpness)

examples of xti kit lens range (i think it's an 18-55mm). i'm cringing looking at the EXIF because at the time i just used auto and the auto "modes".


Like many others, I'm hoping to pick up the XSI kit with 18-55 IS & 55-250 IS kit. Maybe my question wasn't phrased right. I would also carry around my SD800 on my vacation. Sometimes you want to take some "creative" shots that just isn't possible with a P&S.

When you hand off your camera for a stranger to take your picture, sometimes the simplest camera is best. I'm sure most people would say WTF if you handed them your Hasselblad H3DII-39MS. I know I would, and I'd be afraid to drop it.

Tamron also makes a 18-270mm lens that seems to be pretty good.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/

[AudiDude]

What's the best all around lens at a reasonable price? I'm talking about taking your DSLR and a single lens on vacation type setting. It's nice having 5 lenses for different purpose at home, but lugging around those 5 lenses while on vacation is not practical.

I know that a high zoom lens will suffer from barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations at both ends but we're on vacation, so it won't matter much. Just getting the shot makes the distortion worthwhile.

I'm sure a lot of people have or will be picking up a DSLR in a few days, so I hope it helps everyone out.

I could do without 5 lenses, but not 3. A 10-20, and a 50mm 1.4/1.8 are fairly small and light.Add a lens that shoots 17-50 with large aperature (and IS if you can get it) and you've got your bases covered.

If you really like to take pictures, you will kick yourself in the ass for not carrying the lenses you need to get the pics you want. If you are willing to settle, then just get the 17-50 range, or get a DSLR with 21-24 megapixels, shoot far away and crop like crazy with software...

[monty613]

Maybe my question wasn't phrased right.


not sure what your original question re: "best all around" lens means other than focal range, max aperture, etc. it's more the function of the DSLR body where you can get creative with settings that aren't available on most P&S cameras.

anyways, i stand by my comment of learning the limitations of the kit lens first before you go out and buy gear.

[politbureau]

I doubt there is any "one" lens to rule them all. Vacationing is always a balancing act. I typically bring 2 lenses on vacation, otherwise travel with a regular kit.

For Sony A300/A700, my all arounder is the 16-105mm, despite relatively soft full open and mid-long tele. The IQ is fine for uploads, family and anything up to regular 8x10 home prints, but the IQ of the 16-80mm is my personal favourite.

Anyway, here's the usual suspects...

CZ 16-80mm for general portraits and ultimate IQ
CZ 16-105mm for city travelling (ie. no tele)
75-300mm for anything distant...
GS 35mm f/1.4 for indoor and low light

I also have a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and a 28mm f/2.8 for gap filling.

[bigred123]

For Nikon mounts, what about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? If you didn't need a lens longer than 55mm, would you buy this or the Nikon 16-85 f3.5-5.6 it has VR II for the lens.

[Kasakato]

For Nikon mounts, what about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? If you didn't need a lens longer than 55mm, would you buy this or the Nikon 16-85 f3.5-5.6 it has VR II for the lens.

Thats exactly what Im deciding between this week. :lol: Im partial to fast lenses so the Tamron is what Im going to try out today.

[TenzoR]

For Nikon mounts, what about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? If you didn't need a lens longer than 55mm, would you buy this or the Nikon 16-85 f3.5-5.6 it has VR II for the lens.

It's just my personal preference but I prefer having VR/IS over a larger aperture. I'm really bad in terms of holding my camera steady unless I use a tripod.

[mietief]

I doubt there is any "one" lens to rule them all. Vacationing is always a balancing act. I typically bring 2 lenses on vacation, otherwise travel with a regular kit.

For Sony A300/A700, my all arounder is the 16-105mm, despite relatively soft full open and mid-long tele. The IQ is fine for uploads, family and anything up to regular 8x10 home prints, but the IQ of the 16-80mm is my personal favourite.

Anyway, here's the usual suspects...

CZ 16-80mm for general portraits and ultimate IQ
CZ 16-105mm for city travelling (ie. no tele)
75-300mm for anything distant...
GS 35mm f/1.4 for indoor and low light

I also have a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and a 28mm f/2.8 for gap filling.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what do GS and CZ stand for?

[Kasakato]

It's just my personal preference but I prefer having VR/IS over a larger aperture. I'm really bad in terms of holding my camera steady unless I use a tripod.

No stop-motion photography? While I like the VR on my 70-300, f/5.6 is still way to slow. It stops hand shake, but dosent do much for action.

[TenzoR]

No stop-motion photography? While I like the VR on my 70-300, f/5.6 is still way to slow. It stops hand shake, but dosent do much for action.

Not really an action shot type person. I guess it be nice to have a fast aperture when I take picture of my fast moving pets but that's what primes are for ;)

[KorruptioN]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what do GS and CZ stand for?

CZ stands for Carl Zeiss, and GS probably stands for G-Series.

[frogger]

The closest I can think of is Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM ;)

I have the Pentax 31mm f1.8 Limited. Its quite a bit nicer than the Sigma but the price brand new reflects that.

Realistically, I would bring 2-3 lenses on vacation if I planned on doing quite a bit of photography.. the 31mm, the 18-250mm and probably the Sigma 10-20mm.

[rdtx2002]

the best "jack of all trades" lens is the

Nikon 18-200mm VR

but.. i'ts not a reasonable price :P

[TenzoR]

I have the Pentax 31mm f1.8 Limited. Its quite a bit nicer than the Sigma but the price brand new reflects that.

Realistically, I would bring 2-3 lenses on vacation if I planned on doing quite a bit of photography.. the 31mm, the 18-250mm and probably the Sigma 10-20mm.

Thanks for the info! Never knew there was a 31mm f1.8

[TenzoR]

the best "jack of all trades" lens is the

Nikon 18-200mm VR

but.. i'ts not a reasonable price :P

It's not bad, 550-650 for an used one. It's a nice lens but not without flaw, but as long as you know the limitation it's a mighty fine lens :D

[iridescent]

For travel, I would say 24-105 f4 L IS on a full frame Canon camera, or 35 mm f/1.4L. The 35 will take care of everything you throw at it.

[rename]

For Nikon mounts, what about the Tamron 17-50 f2.8? If you didn't need a lens longer than 55mm, would you buy this or the Nikon 16-85 f3.5-5.6 it has VR II for the lens.

I own the Tamron, and its the best decision I made when I got it.
I'd still buy the Tamron over Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 it has VR II any time.

I also have Nikon 35mm f/2 (which I'm planning to get Sigma 30mm 1.4 soon)

If the focal length is more than 3 times of the wide angle (such as 17mm * 3 =51mm) then the lens quality drops
i.e check all the f/2.8 lenses around, "most" of them have 3x rule on them. (24-75mm, 17-50mm, 17-55mm etc.)

return to the topic;
For the best walk around, IMHO, is Nikon 18-200mm VR. however I prefer the larger aperture in any time of the day over a better telephoto option in one lens.

[iridescent]

Also, can someone explain to my why the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 (I think that's it) is ridiculously expensive (even despite the fact it's not being made anymore)? What the hell? $2500+ I think. That alone turned me off getting a D700.

[Kasakato]

Also, can someone explain to my why the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 (I think that's it) is ridiculously expensive (even despite the fact it's not being made anymore)? What the hell? $2500+ I think. That alone turned me off getting a D700.

No such thing as the 28mm f1.8. The 28mm f1.4 is the one priced at $2k+. Why? Its a sweet, fast, wide lens. Its super sharp at 1.4. Time does not tend to depreciate excellent glass.

[AudiDude]

For travel, I would say 24-105 f4 L IS on a full frame Canon camera, or 35 mm f/1.4L. The 35 will take care of everything you throw at it.

While I totally agree, somehow I think that because of the question that was asked, the OP does not have a full frame camera...

[thelefteyeguy]

No such thing as the 28mm f1.8. The 28mm f1.4 is the one priced at $2k+. Why? Its a sweet, fast, wide lens. Its super sharp at 1.4. Time does not tend to depreciate excellent glass.

but more importantly...it's not manufactured anymore ;)

Supply is fixed

[TotalDistinction]

If you're using a Canon APS-C (not full-frame) DSLR, I would recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8 lens. The lens is approx. $1000 used though and will likely cover the majority of pics that you will take in that focal length.

If you are going go do a lot of wide angle photography like landscapes or you are in tight quarters, having a focal length less than 24 will will be helpful on a 1.6 crop camera.

The 2.8 and IS are very welcome bonuses and the lens is well reviewed and is compared *optically* to L-glass.

The only downside is that if you upgrade to full frame later on, the lens is not compatible but should hold its value should you sell it to someone else as is the case with most of Canon's lenses.

[iridescent]

No such thing as the 28mm f1.8. The 28mm f1.4 is the one priced at $2k+. Why? Its a sweet, fast, wide lens. Its super sharp at 1.4. Time does not tend to depreciate excellent glass.

Right, sorry, I use Canon equipment so I didn't remember the aperture. My Canon 35mm f/1.4L is all of those things, and the 24mm f/1.4L II is supposed to be really amazing (I owned version I which was also great), and they were nearly 30-40% of the price of this 28mm f/1.8 Nikkor. Even if it's not made anymore, it's still ridiculously priced! Why, when comparable professional Canons are a lot cheaper?

[warpdrive]

It is totally worth while to bring multiple lenses to do the right job. If you ask me, I'd rather bring a G10 or a Canon S5 before bringing a DSLR body and a 18-200 lens.

I totally disagree with that. P&S cameras are great for daytime shots, but on the average vacation, I shot half my shots at 400 or 800 ISO which is where any P&S camera falls apart for usable shots. Something like the G10 is too big of a camera to slip in a pants pocket yet it lacks the ultimate low light capability of an SLR, for me, it takes the worse compromise of both types of cameras. I used to have a prosumer type camera myself, and I was much much happier travelling with a 18-200/SLR combo.

[SENSEI]

I totally disagree with that. P&S cameras are great for daytime shots, but on the average vacation, I shot half my shots at 400 or 800 ISO which is where any P&S camera falls apart for usable shots. Something like the G10 is too big of a camera to slip in a pants pocket yet it lacks the ultimate low light capability of an SLR, for me, it takes the worse compromise of both types of cameras. I used to have a prosumer type camera myself, and I was much much happier travelling with a 18-200/SLR combo.

Don't get me wrong, the DSLR is my first choice all the time. Just not with a 18-200. After shooting travel for 10 years digitally, there is no way I will compromise my photos with a 18-200. All I'm saying is I'd rather take along multiple lenses to get the job done right the first time.

If I was to be stuck with only one lens and that lens was any 18-200, I'd rather take a prosumer. I've been on tonnes of vacations with friends who have brought their whole DSLR setup. I take my FZ5 or G9. You can't tell the difference accept in low light shots like you said. Having said that though, low light vacation shots are typically indoor group shots...and unless you have an external flash, the 18-200 is still going to give you pretty crappy low light shots...it's just not fast enough.

Another bonus to just the G9 is that I can put a 580EXII on it if I need, have it for underwater shots, shoot movies, and still have daytime shots that can't be told apart from DSLR. In the end, you'll see me having the G9 and the DSLR with 3-4 lenses everywhere I travel either way.

[NiMSo]

Unless I'm travelling to some exotic location with great photo opportunities then I will NOT bring my DSLR gear. Its just way too heavy, cumbersome, and expensive for casual photo snapping. Instead of bringing an overkill setup, I'd just carry a super-zoom prosumer camera (e.g. Canon S5 IS, etc.) which has a huge range and can produce great results in good light, while also giving the ability to capture nice videos.

In my opinion, using a single lens setup totally defeats the advantage of a DSLR - that being the ability to change lenses to adapt to different situations. However, it's understandable that you only want to carry one, but in that case just leave it home and bring something smaller! :)

[warpdrive]

In my opinion, using a single lens setup totally defeats the advantage of a DSLR - that being the ability to change lenses to adapt to different situations.

Good photos is also a product of photo opportunity, and that's where one single lens can save the day. Sometimes you need to take multiple shots and you can't adapt to the situation quickly enough when you have to change lenses (without resorting to two bodies) or its too much of a hassle to do so repeatedly which is the case when you are actually trying to enjoy the scenery at the same time.

I've always found prosumer cameras to take the worst bit of having an SLR (the size) without offering the benefits of a P&S (the ultra small size). And I'd much rather carry an relatively compact P&S like the Panasonic FX150 for most snapshot situations. It has a wide angle lens which is more important for group shots, and average scenics.

My ideal light travel gear consists of both a SLR with 18-200 and a 50mm + a very compact pocket P&S like the Sony T series which completely disappears in my pocket. Personally, I dislike changing lenses on the go because 1) the conditions are usually less than ideal when I'm travelling due to weather and/or time, and 2) it's about the limit for what I consider travelling lightly.

[robattoronto]

If I was travelling and I had absolutely only once choice in lens - I'd go with the Nikon 18-200VR lens without a doubt.