Best all around quality lens?

[Derrel]

He may be a squealing fool , but he has some great tats!

 

[Derrel]

Did the guy who doesn't take pictures, and makes the lowest 1985 era quality videos, recommend a Fuji lens for the D500?

No I do not think he recommended a Fuji lens, but he did recommend the 45 millimeter F 1.8 Tamron vibration control lens.

 

[Braineack]

Did the guy who doesn't take pictures, and makes the lowest 1985 era quality videos, recommend a Fuji lens for the D500?

No I do not think he recommended a Fuji lens, but he did recommend the 45 millimeter F 1.8 Tamron vibration control lens.

Read the autofocus reviews on that lens...

 

[Derrel]

Angry Dude mentions that it has slow Focus. I saw some photos from it when it first appeared and I thought it had really nervous, unpleasant bokeh. I have owned the Nikkor 45/2.8 P for 15+ years.... it is a really useful focal length and the 45-P is an excellent lens, a modern Tessar design. It is one of only two manual focus Factory Nikkor lenses which are equipped with a CPU. ( the other was the 500mm f/4 P). I really like a 45 mm lens at times, but the pictures that I saw made with this Tamron 45mm VC were not good.

 

[Derrel]

45-P with an extension tube.Slides to out of focus without any unpleasantness.This was shot on the crop-body Fuji S2 Pro, in JPEG mode.

 

[Braineack]

It's not that I have slow focus it has many reported issues with being able to focus whatsoever... Just go to b&h and look at the reviews from actual owners who had to return it for various copies before they got a good one.

 

[Lonnie1212]

Yup the wide end is difficult.
But I suppose that is what a wide zooms are for.

In DX, the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 and 18-140/3.5-5.6 are good options.
The 18-140 has just enough reach that I don't have as much need to pull out the longer lenses. It's only fault is when shooting in LOW light, it is just too slow.
I sometimes wish it was a bit wider, and have been eyeing the 16-80/2.8-4.

But for light travel, my kit is a Micro 4/3, Olympus EM10 + Panasonic-Lumix 12-60/3.5-5.6 (24-120 FX equiv) + 17/1.8 (for indoor low light)

Yup the wide end is difficult.
But I suppose that is what a wide zooms are for.

In DX, the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 and 18-140/3.5-5.6 are good options.
The 18-140 has just enough reach that I don't have as much need to pull out the longer lenses. It's only fault is when shooting in LOW light, it is just too slow.
I sometimes wish it was a bit wider, and have been eyeing the 16-80/2.8-4.

But for light travel, my kit is a Micro 4/3, Olympus EM10 + Panasonic-Lumix 12-60/3.5-5.6 (24-120 FX equiv) + 17/1.8 (for indoor low light)

The 16-80 mm sounds hot!

 

[ac12]

Yup the wide end is difficult.
But I suppose that is what a wide zooms are for.

In DX, the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 and 18-140/3.5-5.6 are good options.
The 18-140 has just enough reach that I don't have as much need to pull out the longer lenses. It's only fault is when shooting in LOW light, it is just too slow.
I sometimes wish it was a bit wider, and have been eyeing the 16-80/2.8-4.

But for light travel, my kit is a Micro 4/3, Olympus EM10 + Panasonic-Lumix 12-60/3.5-5.6 (24-120 FX equiv) + 17/1.8 (for indoor low light)

Yup the wide end is difficult.
But I suppose that is what a wide zooms are for.

In DX, the Nikon 16-80/2.8-4 and 18-140/3.5-5.6 are good options.
The 18-140 has just enough reach that I don't have as much need to pull out the longer lenses. It's only fault is when shooting in LOW light, it is just too slow.
I sometimes wish it was a bit wider, and have been eyeing the 16-80/2.8-4.

But for light travel, my kit is a Micro 4/3, Olympus EM10 + Panasonic-Lumix 12-60/3.5-5.6 (24-120 FX equiv) + 17/1.8 (for indoor low light)

The 16-80 mm sounds hot!

It is, but in the way of "there is no free lunch," it is not a light lens.
480g vs. 490g for my 18-140.

 

[greybeard]

I have a bunch of lenses and I always end up just taking my 24-120 f/4. It is plenty sharp and contrasty for me and it has enough reach for most things.

 

[mjcmt]

Getting ready to go on a trip in a couple months. Would like to be able to take less camera equipment on the trip. Currently always taking 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and 50mm 1.4.

What quality lens can be bought that would be a good compromise as compared to taking all of these lenses?

I'm curious, which 50 1.4 do you have and what do you think of the image quality?

 

[Space Face]

The one you have stuck on the end of your body at that given time in the absence of any other.

 

[greybeard]

For travel I take my Sony a6000, 18-50, 55-200, and Sigma 30mm Nissan i40 flash. Kit is no bigger than a smaller purse.

 

[LWW]

The 28-105 is an awesome FF travel lens.

I'm in this same boat right now.

Honestly, I want something wider than 24mm, but I also dont wanna bring equipment on my trip at all. Ideal a 20-120mm lens would be the tits for my usage, especially travelling.

I have found, while travelling, I've had to stitch quite a few images where 24mm just isn't quite wide enough -- especially in churches and other indoor spaces.

I'm seriously considering just buying an rx100 VI or VII just to travel with. This will significantly reduce the space/weight/hassle require with even my non-gripped body and single lens.

My other thought was the old 28-105mm lens it's small and light and performs well. I feel like DX gets a lot more options in the standard range, without just being 24-70. like the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.

That 28-105 lens is under rated. It is sharp enough, fast enough, and the converging lines are straight. That lens is a corker for sure. Heck, the micro switch is fiddly but darn good once you figure it out.