Your "Must Have Lenses": I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that...

tommyf Loc: Vero Beach, FL

I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that many amateur photographers fit this description?? Excluding professionals who have certain needs for certain lenses, what four or five lenses do you recommend for amateurs like me? By the way, is the 70~200 2.8 one of these lenses? Thank you so much for your input.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I cover the full range with an 18-55 VR and a 55-300 VR Nikkor lens. They meet most of my needs. I do a lot of safaris and don't want to deal with too many lenses in dusty conditions. A wide angle prime lens is going to be my next purchase, something somewhere from 18 to 35mm for better landscapes. The sweet spot on zoom lenses is usually somewhere in the middle of the range. At 18mm, my 18-55 has a fair amount of distortion, like leaning buildings on either side of a city scape, easily correctible in Lightroom 5. It would be nice to start out with a better image to begin with. That's my 2 cents.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

If I was just starting out my first lens (assuming I could afford it) would be the 28-70mm f/2.8 since that's what's on my camera 80+% of the time. I use it more than my wide angle lens for landscapes and more than my two primes for portraits. For wildlife I have other lenses. I'm not a professional so I don't have a need for a 70-200mm f/2.8 which many wedding photographers use - I know it's a great lens for many other purposes but I've never felt the need to justify the high price tag.

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

The Tamron 70-200, f/2.8 is an excellent lens to have, abet a bit heavy for a walk around lens. Also the Tamron, 24-70 f/2.8 is another excellent lens. Both are cheaper then the Nikon lens of the same specs.

For a everyday walk around, I use the Nikon 28-300.

There I go, assuming that your a Nikon shooter, but Tamron makes lens for most popular cameras.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

tommyf wrote:

I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that many amateur photographers fit this description?? Excluding professionals who have certain needs for certain lenses, what four or five lenses do you recommend for amateurs like me? By the way, is the 70~200 2.8 one of these lenses? Thank you so much for your input.

Yes (to me at least), it is one of those lenses. I have the 70-200/2.8 II, and it is probably my most used lens, a lens I would not like to be without. The second one has to be my 16-35/2.8 II as well as my400mm for birds and such, all lenses I consider "must have" (for my needs). I have a lot more lenses but those three fit that description the most!

skiman Loc: Ventura, CA

tommyf wrote:

I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that many amateur photographers fit this description?? Excluding professionals who have certain needs for certain lenses, what four or five lenses do you recommend for amateurs like me? By the way, is the 70~200 2.8 one of these lenses? Thank you so much for your input.

it is all a set of trade offs between weight, cost, flexibility and conditions. You can buy 4-5 good prime lenses that cover closeup, low light, long reach. These are generally lighter and better quality than a zoom covering the same range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is great if you are shooting sports under stadium lights but is heavy and more expensive if you were shooting a landscape in the daylight. You can get a nikon 18-300mm that covers the whole gamut for a DX camera but is $900 and a slow lens and heavy compared to the 18-55mm and 55-300mm pair that will cover the same range at a lower cost and lower weight, but you do have to change lenses. I have a D7100 and keep the 18-140mm on it most of the time. If I need to shoot high school football games at night, then the 70-200 2.8 is needed.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

traveler90712 wrote:

The Tamron 70-200, f/2.8 is an excellent lens to have, abet a bit heavy for a walk around lens. Also the Tamron, 24-70 f/2.8 is another excellent lens. Both are cheaper then the Nikon lens of the same specs.

For a everyday walk around, I use the Nikon 28-300.

There I go, assuming that your a Nikon shooter, but Tamron makes lens for most popular cameras.

I have been researching the Tamron lenses and am about to purchase one of the two. I just can't make up my mind which and the budget won't allow for both at this time. I have a Nikon D7000 and hope to give myself the D610 for Christmas. In the mean time the Tamron will be busy on the 7000.

Right now I use my Nikon 55-300 for most of my current shooting.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

This is tough! My 28-300 probably gets the most use but my 14-24 and my primes (105 micro, 85, 50, 28, 24 and 20) are my favs. Come to think about it my 16-35 and 24-70 are good too! This is too difficult - I need a nap!

Dave Johnson Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan

A 70-200 is a nice lens and covers a lot of focal length at the telephoto end. I love mine but a lot will depend on the type of photography you do. I use mine for portraiture most of the time.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

tommyf wrote:

I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that many amateur photographers fit this description?? Excluding professionals who have certain needs for certain lenses, what four or five lenses do you recommend for amateurs like me? By the way, is the 70~200 2.8 one of these lenses? Thank you so much for your input.

The four I use most often:
Nikon 28-300mm
Tokina 16-28mm F/2.8
Nikon 105mm Micro
Sigma 15mm fisheye

Chris F. Loc: San Francisco

It depends on the subject matter but for me the 70-200/2.8 II is used often. My 100-400/5.6 is used often too for whale and nature photography. For closer ranges, I use the 24-105/f4 and for low light subjects, the 24-70/2.8 II. I use mainly Canon, but the new Tamron 150-600mm is on my list. I'm waiting like everyone else and would like to check it out at the store first before purchasing.

Pine1 Loc: Midland & Lakeway

I have a Nikon D7100. I have a 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 18-200 f3.5,105 f2.8G Macro and a 70-200 f2.8 II. I am expecting to add a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and a Nikon 14-24 f2.8 to round things out. If I could only pick 3 I would choose the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200. Have fun.

tommyf wrote:

I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that many amateur photographers fit this description?? Excluding professionals who have certain needs for certain lenses, what four or five lenses do you recommend for amateurs like me? By the way, is the 70~200 2.8 one of these lenses? Thank you so much for your input.

Rodney1234

I do a lot of traveling. I love my Nokor 18-300. A little slow so the only other lens I carry is a Nikor 35 (50 mm equivalent on my crop sensor) but much faster.

amehta Loc: Boston

tommyf wrote:

I am an amateur, all around photographer, who sees images, not just landscapes or portraits, never dealt with macro, just great images, so I am assuming that many amateur photographers fit this description?? Excluding professionals who have certain needs for certain lenses, what four or five lenses do you recommend for amateurs like me? By the way, is the 70~200 2.8 one of these lenses? Thank you so much for your input.

As with almost everything, the answer starts with "it depends". In this case, it depends on your budget and your photography level (either current or expected). If your lens budget is $3-6k, and you are willing to put the effort to become an advanced amateur photographer, then yes, a lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8 makes the short list. Otherwise, there are other options.

Neubee Loc: Wisconsin

2 lens are OK if you don't want heavy..
18-55mm & 50-200/270mm on "C" sensor camera.
Price is right,weight is right, ?? don't really need f/2.8
unless shooting in low light,mucho bucks.. I do a lot of "street" shooting and my largest apt is 2.8f..
My wife has a 1.8f for inside shots..