Is there one ideal lens for all around use? (Page 2): And God said on the 7th day... "Let there be fun, photography, I shall keep a scrap book... what is the perfect lens... aaaa the...

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

And God said on the 7th day... "Let there be fun, photography, I shall keep a scrap book... what is the perfect lens... aaaa the pin-hole... best all round!!"

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

You seem to be limited for the low light shots. Using a flash is of great help for that but you need to learn how to use the flash. Straight flash on your subjects is not the way to go indoors.
For low light capabilities you need a fast lens, something with a maximum aperture of f1.8 or 2.8. Both of the lenses that the salesman suggested are excellent optics and in my case I would be inclined to go for the 24-120 although with your crop sensor 24mm could not be wide enough.
I have used the 18-200 only and it seems to be a nice walk around lens only limited in low light although many times we can get by raising the ISO speed in camera.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

jerrypoller wrote:

My dilemma is that I'm looking for one lens to use in all these situations.

That doesn't sound like much fun. :D

I use the Nikon 28 - 300mm on my D610 most of the time, but I'll switch to wide angle, fisheye, or macro when necessary. The less the spread of a zoom lens, the better the lens will probably be.

jayro Loc: Fort Worth Tx

crudasill wrote:

I do know how to spell, sometimes the spell check makes me look.....well.....I went to dental school, not practicing , but not stupid! Wish I could have it all!

Here's an idea....maybe read it before you post it. Just sayin'

ole sarg Loc: south florida

The ideal lens is the one you have on your camera when you put it to your eye to take a picture. All the other lenses in the world are useless at that moment.

jerrypoller wrote:

This is my first post, but I've been getting the Ugly Hedgehog daily newsletter for about a month now and reading many of the posts - I'm very impressed with the breadth and depth of knowledge I'm finding.

By way of background, I've been taking family snap shots almost all my 67 years, but didn't get more involved until I retired 10 years ago and discovered digital photography. Since then, I've graduated(?) from my original Canon point and shoot to a Canon zoom dslr looking camera, to a Nikon D80, then the D90, and just last month to the D7100. I've owned the original 18-55 kit lens that came with my D80, then the 18-200 VR AF-S, and most recently to the 18-300 3.5-5.6 AF-S VR. I also have a 50mm f1.8 D, but rarely shoot with it.

I shoot vacation photos, indoors and out - churches, landscapes, architecture, street scenes, and people - all without flash. I also take thousands of family photos, almost all candid - not posed, and then crop them mainly for portraits, which I hang all over my home office.

With each camera and lens upgrade, I've been striving for equipment which will give me sharper images in all light and action situations - kids sports and just playing - family interaction, etc. As I said, I prefer to get behind the camera, out of the way, and just photograph life as it passes my lens. I've gotten some great portraits of my grandchildren that way.

My dilemma is that I'm looking for one lens to use in all these situations. I'm a little paranoid when traveling about changing lenses on the fly (I find traveling enough of a hassle itself these days to not wanting to add reaching into my camera bag frequently to get the right lens for the right shot), or missing pictures I only get once chance to get. I thought the 18-300mm lens would be the ideal solution for this problem, but have found in the past year, that its low light capability in extended zoom gives me either grainy or soft pictures when I crop them.

I live near the Cameta brick and mortar store and was in there today discussing this. The salesman suggested I consider the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 or the Nikkor 24-120mm f4 as improvements over my current lens. I know I'd be giving up significant zoom with either of these, but am wondering if the sharpness of the lenses would allow me to crop my images enough to mimic the zoom of my 18-300mm and still get sharp images. Or, is there yet another one lens does it all solution - perhaps just a prime that would give me enough versatility. As much as I enjoy my photography, I know I'll never get deeper into it than serious amateur, and I'm not looking to own a whole lot of equipment - one camera at a time seems to be my limit.

It's almost a case of the more research I do, the more difficult it's becoming to sift through all the information and make a decision. I've come to know this past month that this forum is the place to get sound, practical advice. Thanks in advance for all your help.

This is my first post, but I've been getting the U... (show quote)

SonyBug

MT Shooter wrote:

With a crop sensor body you won't be able to do much better than the Nikon 18-300mm you already have. Up the ISO indoors and it performs well. Outdoors its very hard to beat.
Most of us are all still waiting for than magical 12-1200mm F1.8 VR lens that is in the rumor mill.

Yeah, I want one of those too. Do you think they will sell for over $100, since my budget is a little short right now.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

MT Shooter wrote:

With a crop sensor body you won't be able to do much better than the Nikon 18-300mm you already have. Up the ISO indoors and it performs well. Outdoors its very hard to beat.
Most of us are all still waiting for than magical 12-1200mm F1.8 VR lens that is in the rumor mill.

I'd switch from Canon to Nikon for that one

h1h1d4mje

if I WANTED ONLY ONE LENS, I WOULD TRY THE TAMRON 16-300.

bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.

The Tamron sounds good...

PhotoPhred Loc: Cheyney, Pa

I have to agree with NJFrank, the Sigma 18-250 macro is a great all around lens. I rarely change lenses, except for my fisheye or 500mm tele. Well made and priced right.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

As usual, Gene51, went to the gist of the issue, the answer to the posted question is "No". He added "not if you care about your images".

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

"I feel your pain". I opted to park my telephoto lenses and purchased three Nikor prime lenses - 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. They are reasonable in price, light and very fast. I use them for candid and poised photographs of my family. Typically, I don't heed a flash. I have a 70 to 300 for long range shots which I seldom use. Heavy and only can be used with a flash indoors unless you like blur!

Chelli

MT Shooter wrote:

With a crop sensor body you won't be able to do much better than the Nikon 18-300mm you already have. Up the ISO indoors and it performs well. Outdoors its very hard to beat.
Most of us are all still waiting for than magical 12-1200mm F1.8 VR lens that is in the rumor mill.

Carter,
You certainly have BIG dreams. Lol
Cheers!

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

for the money, Tamron 18-270 is a pretty darn versatile lens..excellent everyday carrynot Canon quality.BUT not Canon price...

RJNaylor Loc: Delmar, New York

I found a two lens system that works pretty well for me. I use the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 most of the time but have the Nikon 18-200 VR II for when I need a lot of flexibility. Most of my shots work with the 17-50 range but sometimes I want to zoom way in on something. (I did just get the Olympus M1 with the 12-40 f/2.8 and find my photos to be almost always sharp.