One lens... only one lens... Which one?

Not sure if it was stated already.

If I was stuck with just one lens it would be the Nikkor 17-55 F2.8. It can be had used for under $1000.

I agree with comments relating to why on earth you would by a DSLR so that you are stuck with a single lens, never mind a super range consumer zoom.

For me, the single lens on DX would be a 50mm lens (maybe f/1.8 G? I dunno...). 50mm is decent for portraits on DX, and is still wide enough that you can do some other things with it.

(Although it would be a hard choice between the 50 and the Sigma 30... the Sigma is not as good at portraits since it is wider, but it is a better overall lens. I suppose it really depends on what you want to shoot).

Cheers

Prime : 35mm 1.8

Zoom : 18-105

J.

In these forums there is one phrase that is bound to trigger answers that basically say "that is so wrong", and that is when someone asks for "only one lens". I contributed myself in this thread higher up, when I talked about it as a "peculiar idea".

However, is it really "wrong", "peculiar", "ridiculous", "blasphemous" or even "unusual"?

A lot of people probably just buy a DSLR with a kit lens, and they never go beyond that, so it is hardly "unusual".

Is it irrational then? It may not be. Assume that Bob takes only one kind of pictures. He buys a camera to take close up pictures of flowers in the garden - that and nothing else. The best Nikon camera for the job is probably a D4 or D800 with a 105mm macro lens. There is no point-and-shoot or phone camera that would do a better job. So he gets a camera and one (1) lens, and he is done.

He can still use it for other things, like portraits and so on, but that is just an additional bonus. What about taking pictures of landscapes? It might be nice, but he is not prepared to pay for it. What about architecture? Would be nice, but it is nothing he is prepared to pay for. What about holiday snaps? He has his smartphone, and he definitely would not like to drag around a heavy DSLR. The one single thing he wants to take really good photos of is close ups of flowers.

It would even be ridiculous to buy a second lens. He does not need it, so why buy it?

But he does not fully use his great camera! Yes, he does. He fully uses it for the purpose he bought it for. Good for him!

50 mm 1.8

Tokina 12-28 f/4 is on my camera 90% of the time. Most of my pictures are taken between 12mm and 18 mm.

Shunda77 said:

Shunda77 wrote:

Shunda77 said:

RedorBlack wrote:

If you were starting out with a Nikon DX camera all over again and could only buy one lens (any brand) to go with it... what would it be? I guess this is the "What is the lens that spends 90% of the time on your camera, and why?" Let's keep that under $1K as well... so we don't get a the dream lens that you could sell off for 10 other lenses.

Scott

Click to expand...

Because I like landscapes, the Nikon 16-85 is pretty hard to beat, a great lens, compact, sharp, and covers a huge field of view.

All lenses are a compromise one way or the other, so your favorite subject matter should determine how you look at a one lens solution.

Click to expand...

+1. Great lens.

Member said:

mlewan wrote:

In these forums there is one phrase that is bound to trigger answers that basically say "that is so wrong", and that is when someone asks for "only one lens".

Click to expand...

Ahhh....but there is also . . .

In these forums there is one phrase that is bound to trigger answers that basically say "that is so wrong", and that is when someone says "Ken Rockwell says".

But I do find myself wanting to try the Nikon 18-200, which KR seems to love. It is supposedly prone to zoom creep.

For a prime, I would say the 35 f/1.8. The 50 mm isn't wide enough for most indoor situations.

RedorBlack said:

RedorBlack wrote:

If you were starting out with a Nikon DX camera all over again and could only buy one lens (any brand) to go with it... what would it be? I guess this is the "What is the lens that spends 90% of the time on your camera, and why?" Let's keep that under $1K as well... so we don't get a the dream lens that you could sell off for 10 other lenses.

Scott

Click to expand...

Forcing it under $1k is ruling out a lot of good lenses. Including all of those that spend the most time on my cameras.

My fave for versatility, not weight, has always been the Nikon 70-200's.

Member said:

mlewan wrote:

Ignoring the peculiar idea that one would have a camera with just one interchangeable lens: the 35mm f/1.8. Small, convenient, practical width, good for low light.

Click to expand...

Only one lens for DX on a budget? I'd vote for the 35/1.8 DX as well. It's just hard to argue with the quality for the size and price. Even if you add more glass later, this lens will continue to be useful. The Sigma 30/1.4 A would be a good alternative you want to spend more, but for the extra $$ it's no longer a "no-brainer" for me.

Unless of course you know you have some special application (macro, super-wide, etc.), in which case why are you asking us?

Member said:

If price is no objection, probably a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 or a Nikkor 35mm AF-S f/1.4 for better performance than the f/1.8, but I must admit that I have experience with neither of them.

Click to expand...

If you're spending THAT much for a 35 on DX, then IMHO you have to seriously consider moving up to FF and getting a 50-60mm lens (of which there are many excellent examples).

Get Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. It shall replace at least 3 primes.

I recently purchased Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 and it rarely comes off my D7100. I am very happy with the results from that Art lens.

Well worth the money, IMHO.

larsleer said:

larsleer wrote:

Sigma 17-50 F2.8 HSM is on my camera 90% of the time i use it. It´s not a super zoom but it´s a very versatile lens.

Click to expand...

Same. I'd pick that, or maybe the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.

RedorBlack said:

RedorBlack wrote:

OK, I'll clarify the request... presently shooting with the D3200 with the kit 18-55mm lens while waiting for my Panasonic Lumix FZ200 to get repaired. I'm thinking about returning the D3200 kit and trying to figure out how to afford a D7100 and an excellent general purpose lens good for urban shooting of buildings, bridges, people using just existing light, usually at night.

I do want a bad ass zoom, but to beat what my Panasonic FZ200 is capable of for ridiculous zoom on the cheap, I'd be selling my soul and a couple of cars. Unless of course anyone has a gently used 800mm Nikon they want to get rid of cheap

I've never shot with a primary, but it sounds like the IQ to price ratio might make it worth starting there and adding on the big bad telephotos as finances allow.

For a short zoom, the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II might be 'the one' and they seem to be going for under $400, although I'm often shooting for max depth of field when shooting architecture/landscapes and apparently shallow depth of field is one of the pluses of that lens. The IQ seems to get rave reviews as well.

Thanks for playing...

Scott

Click to expand...

I probably use my Tamron 17- 50mm f/2.8 for 80- 90% of my shooting. For roughly $1000 (might take you slightly over) you could combine that with a Nikon 70- 300mm f/ 4.5- 5.6 VR. That would cover almost everything you might need. In the event you think you might want a wider angle in some situation (except for action) try making a panorama.