best all round lens for my Nikon D3200
Discussion
Well, I am leaning all the time... I went out yesterday and took some shots using my 18-55 lens, and a few with the 55 - 200.
As its a pain swapping the lens in the outdoors, I wondered if I should go for an 18- 200 or even an 18-300 so that when we go on holiday in a few months, I need to only take one lens and not keep swapping around.
any thoughts?
As its a pain swapping the lens in the outdoors, I wondered if I should go for an 18- 200 or even an 18-300 so that when we go on holiday in a few months, I need to only take one lens and not keep swapping around.
any thoughts?
buzzer said:
Well, I am leaning all the time... I went out yesterday and took some shots using my 18-55 lens, and a few with the 55 - 200.
As its a pain swapping the lens in the outdoors, I wondered if I should go for an 18- 200 or even an 18-300 so that when we go on holiday in a few months, I need to only take one lens and not keep swapping around.
any thoughts?
Such lenses make great travel lenses, with a couple of 'buts'.As its a pain swapping the lens in the outdoors, I wondered if I should go for an 18- 200 or even an 18-300 so that when we go on holiday in a few months, I need to only take one lens and not keep swapping around.
any thoughts?
Firstly, image quality. They won't rival what a fixed focal length 'prime' lens can deliver.
Secondly, weight. Sticking with a kit lens will have weight advantages
Thirdly, speed. These lenses will have small maximum apertures. (As will your kit lens). If you're likely to want to take pics in low light there's a lot to be said for a fast prime, such as a 35mm f1.8
Been there, done that.
Bought a kit with an 18-55.
Added a 55-200.
Got bored with swapping between the two, chopped both in for a Tamron 18-270.
Happy for a while then get annoyed with the softness beyond 200 and the sheer weight. Came to the realisation that I really don't take that many long shots outside of the infrequent airshow.
Chopped in the 18-270 for a 16-85, combined with a 35mm prime.
Borrowed a friend's 70-300 for an airshow, lovely lens, never felt the need for it since.
The 35 now stays on the camera pretty much 99% of the time as I am taking photos of my baby daughter, and it's too cold / grey / crap outside for any scenery shots...
Now considering adding a 11-16 Tokina for those wide shots as the weather gets better...
Bought a kit with an 18-55.
Added a 55-200.
Got bored with swapping between the two, chopped both in for a Tamron 18-270.
Happy for a while then get annoyed with the softness beyond 200 and the sheer weight. Came to the realisation that I really don't take that many long shots outside of the infrequent airshow.
Chopped in the 18-270 for a 16-85, combined with a 35mm prime.
Borrowed a friend's 70-300 for an airshow, lovely lens, never felt the need for it since.
The 35 now stays on the camera pretty much 99% of the time as I am taking photos of my baby daughter, and it's too cold / grey / crap outside for any scenery shots...
Now considering adding a 11-16 Tokina for those wide shots as the weather gets better...
Agree with what has been said above re: the slight negatives - very hard for one lens to do everything as well as those specifically designed for a purpose
That said, like you, I wanted a lens that meant I didn't have to take a whole load of kit on holiday. In the end I went for the Nikon 18-200 - no complaints and has done everything I needed of it with some great results.
That said, like you, I wanted a lens that meant I didn't have to take a whole load of kit on holiday. In the end I went for the Nikon 18-200 - no complaints and has done everything I needed of it with some great results.
Been there to a degree and there's a compromise in everything there - you'll need a couple I'd say.
The 18-200 is good all round, but is heavy and isn't great at everything - I've tried one and didn't enjoy it.
I have an 18-70 that I use a lot (it's brilliant), a 35mm that is on more than off and a 55-200 which I use for long photos - To be honest, I've not even touched the 55-200 in 2 months as I just don't use it these days. I'm considering getting rid of the 18-70 and 55-200 for an 18-105 and keeping the 35mm.
The 18-200 is good all round, but is heavy and isn't great at everything - I've tried one and didn't enjoy it.
I have an 18-70 that I use a lot (it's brilliant), a 35mm that is on more than off and a 55-200 which I use for long photos - To be honest, I've not even touched the 55-200 in 2 months as I just don't use it these days. I'm considering getting rid of the 18-70 and 55-200 for an 18-105 and keeping the 35mm.
The 18-70 was my go to Nikon lens. Lovely lens.
Something like a sigma 17-70 may be a better, faster alternative if you don't mind spending more.
One issue I found with using bigger lenses in the past is that they can render the built in flash useless.
Even with the 18-135 Nikkor, which isn't even that big, the flash on my d5000 cast a shadow on the image at anything under about 40mm. The shadow cast over about 1/3 of the frame at 18mm.
Get an 18-70. Be happy.
Something like a sigma 17-70 may be a better, faster alternative if you don't mind spending more.
One issue I found with using bigger lenses in the past is that they can render the built in flash useless.
Even with the 18-135 Nikkor, which isn't even that big, the flash on my d5000 cast a shadow on the image at anything under about 40mm. The shadow cast over about 1/3 of the frame at 18mm.
Get an 18-70. Be happy.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Monday 20th January 16:25
Edited by MysteryLemon on Monday 20th January 16:28
Ev_ said:
18-105? And just walk closer to some of the things you're currently zooming at. 
I had this lens for a while. One word: distortion. At 18mm the barrel distortion is almost comical, and by 105 it's moderately bad pincushion. Oh, and on a hi-res sensor you will find CA if you magnify the images enough. Replaced mine with a 16-85, complimented by 70-300 for telephoto work & couple of primes for best quality.DavidJG said:
I had this lens for a while. One word: distortion. At 18mm the barrel distortion is almost comical, and by 105 it's moderately bad pincushion. Oh, and on a hi-res sensor you will find CA if you magnify the images enough.
Really? I don't think I've corrected lens distortion on a single shot I've taken with my 18-105 over the last six years. Maybe it's down to subject matter - or perhaps my processing OCD isn't as bad as I thought. 
The Jolly Todger said:
I honestly think the best all round lens for a DX camera is the 35mm 1.8. Buy one, you won't regret it.
Tempting.... Is this the one I need?http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-1-8...
buzzer said:
The Jolly Todger said:
I honestly think the best all round lens for a DX camera is the 35mm 1.8. Buy one, you won't regret it.
Tempting.... Is this the one I need?http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-1-8...
I also agree with what Simpo is saying but I would consider a fast 'normal' lens a VERY useful thing to have in your bag for 99% of photographers. Whether it is your one lens solution only you will know.
I have the 35mm lens. I use it to photograph my kid and family events, as I find firing a flash off really intrusive. It's bloody brilliant. It's sharp all the way open ( DXO mark rates it as having twice the perceptual mpix of the kit lens ) the low light capability of the lens is incredible, you can get really nice pics with only a single energy saver bulb behind a lampshade, it makes for a really bright viewfinder, and the angle of view is perfect for indoor pics. It also has the manual override on focus that usually only shows up on really expensive Nikkor glass, just grab the ring and manual focus control of focus. The autofocus is also 4 times as quick as the 18-55, and much quieter, and the phase only autofocus in live view actually works properly, as there is four times as much light getting in.
It's not a total free lunch - the barrel distortion is quite high, there is some vignetting wide open ( all of which can be fixed very easily in post production ) and the depth of field in only a few centimeters deep wide open at f1.8- which means eyes in focus and nose and ears out of focus. Which can make for a flattering effect but can be really annoying if the camera focuses on the ears and puts the eyes out of focus. Best used with single point focus and manually setting the focus point. Or you can stop it down to 3.5 which gives a human sized depth of focus. And there is no VR ( but you don't really need it with such fast glass )
Having said all that, when I got it, I tested used the kit lens and the 35mm over about 1000 shots in various situations, and since seeing the quality the 18-55 has stayed in my bag and only comes out for the wide angle shots. I am going to sell the kit lens and buy a dedicated wide prime. It's that good in my opinion.
The next best lens is the Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon
This is nearly as fast, and DXO mark rate it as taking better pics than the equiv Nikon 24-70 glass and its cheaper. ( although the Nikon glass is better built - no pump and weather sealing- proper pro level kit ) however it is still 760 pounds !
It's not a total free lunch - the barrel distortion is quite high, there is some vignetting wide open ( all of which can be fixed very easily in post production ) and the depth of field in only a few centimeters deep wide open at f1.8- which means eyes in focus and nose and ears out of focus. Which can make for a flattering effect but can be really annoying if the camera focuses on the ears and puts the eyes out of focus. Best used with single point focus and manually setting the focus point. Or you can stop it down to 3.5 which gives a human sized depth of focus. And there is no VR ( but you don't really need it with such fast glass )
Having said all that, when I got it, I tested used the kit lens and the 35mm over about 1000 shots in various situations, and since seeing the quality the 18-55 has stayed in my bag and only comes out for the wide angle shots. I am going to sell the kit lens and buy a dedicated wide prime. It's that good in my opinion.
The next best lens is the Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon
This is nearly as fast, and DXO mark rate it as taking better pics than the equiv Nikon 24-70 glass and its cheaper. ( although the Nikon glass is better built - no pump and weather sealing- proper pro level kit ) however it is still 760 pounds !
I bookmarked this topic as I found it when I was searching for alternative lenses for my Nikon D3000 and I thought I'd contribute to it now.
I have a D3000 with the following lenses
18-55 kit lens
55-200 kit lens from my stolen D40
18-70
70-300
I like motorsport, car shows, landscapes, architecture and night time shots so I ended up using the 18-70 for 90% of the time and the 70-300 for motorsport shots
I tend to stitch shots together for big buildings or large landscapes however as a result I use the 18 end of the lens far more....
So I was thinking I need a wider angle lens - till I found this thread and I bought a 35mm prime
I put it on the camera and to be honest I've hardly taken it off and the exercise is great
I could have never got this shot with my other lenses
Well I probably could but the 18-70 lens has a big lens hood that means if you put it on the floor it points up a fair bit - the 35mm prime is small and means when the camera is on the floor it takes horizontal pictures
Oh and photo quality wise I see the difference but can't quantify it
I have a D3000 with the following lenses
18-55 kit lens
55-200 kit lens from my stolen D40
18-70
70-300
I like motorsport, car shows, landscapes, architecture and night time shots so I ended up using the 18-70 for 90% of the time and the 70-300 for motorsport shots
I tend to stitch shots together for big buildings or large landscapes however as a result I use the 18 end of the lens far more....
So I was thinking I need a wider angle lens - till I found this thread and I bought a 35mm prime
I put it on the camera and to be honest I've hardly taken it off and the exercise is great
I could have never got this shot with my other lenses
Well I probably could but the 18-70 lens has a big lens hood that means if you put it on the floor it points up a fair bit - the 35mm prime is small and means when the camera is on the floor it takes horizontal pictures
Oh and photo quality wise I see the difference but can't quantify it
I've had a few of these lenses, the nikkor 18-200, 18-70 and the 35mm.
The 18-70 is better than the 18-200 for sharpness and distortion. Build quality is virtually the same between the two. It's about a quater of the price too.
The 35mm prime is nice. Light, fast and sharp.
I find my best shots come from going out with only one lens (prime, wide or tele) it forces you to think what you're doing and you start to see the way your camera will. My composition sucked with the 18-200.
The 18-70 is better than the 18-200 for sharpness and distortion. Build quality is virtually the same between the two. It's about a quater of the price too.
The 35mm prime is nice. Light, fast and sharp.
I find my best shots come from going out with only one lens (prime, wide or tele) it forces you to think what you're doing and you start to see the way your camera will. My composition sucked with the 18-200.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff