• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Favorite do-it-all / travel lenses?

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,248
3,673
126
So I've been doing a bit of travel and lot of hiking lately, and I'd like to travel lightly while having a broad range of photo-taking ability. My current lenses really don't allow for that. Anyone have a recommendation for a do-it-all zoom lens? Best I've found so far (without costing an arm and a leg) is Nikon's 18-140 F/3.5-5.6 or a Sigma 18-250 F/3.5-6.3 (damn that's a flexible lens!)

Current lenses (Nikon D7100 body):

Tokina 12-24mm F/4
Nikon 35mm F/1.8
Tokina 100mm F/2.8 macro
 

fralexandr

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2007
2,084
82
91
www.flickr.com
I typically use my smartphone to cover the wider angles and use a cheap 70-300 with 1:2 macro capability as my dslr lens. Modern smart phones are pretty flexible and can replace most lenses other than a true macro, telephoto, or fast prime for low light.
 
Last edited:

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,631
6,992
136
My Micro 4/3 do it all zoom lens is a FF equivalent of 24-70 F/2.8.

24-70 or 24-105 are considered the go to 'walkabout' do it all zoom lens ranges. I prefer a more limited range with a fixed faster aperture than those superzooms that get slower apertures quite quickly.

I mean I really wish they went a bit wider because 24mm is not quite wide enough for the very dynamic landscapes and cityscapes, but for just an overall range to have to just quickly lift up the camera and shoot a variety of scenes, to me that's the sweet spot. You have the ultra-wide covered decently with the 19mm FF equiv Tokina.

I think in LR or another program you can separate your photos by focal length. Do that and see what range most of your photos fall in, and where the most you consider keepers fall in. Then you know what to prioritize.
 
Last edited:

CuriousMike

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2001
3,008
474
136
I used to have the 18-140 for a time; it is a fine lens with a versatile range.
If you need more zoom, there is the (pricier) 18-300 in Nikon and Tamron(?) variations.
 
Aug 7, 2009
198
104
116
I used to mainly use a 24-70 F4 on my OG Sony A7. When I looked at my stats in LR for focal length I found that I was almost always in the 40-60mm range. My dad had an old Minolta 50mm F1.7 lens that I adapted to see how I would like A) manual focus only and B) only having one focal length available to me during an outing.

I have since bought a native FE mount Zeiss Loxia 50mm F2 and it lives on my camera. I still use my 24-70 when I know I will be taking a lot of handheld video, mainly for the optical stabilization since the first gen A7 doesn't have IBIS, or if I know I am going somewhere that will have great opportunities for landscape photos. I plan on getting a wider lens for the latter situation in the near future. Otherwise, my 50mm manual focus lens is the only lens I bring.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,248
3,673
126
I found a good deal on a used Nikon 18-200 VR II, so I went with that. Most of my pictures (at least during hiking) were <100mm, though I did get a couple of ~200mm shots. The lens is a bit soft at full zoom, with a fair bit of chromatic aberration, but eliminating those would probably raise the cost by 10x.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,954
11,876
126
I know a lot of people think that the 18-200mm lens is hot stuff and can do it all, but I have noticed the image quality at either end is consistently poor. Unless its a VERY expensive model.
 

fralexandr

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2007
2,084
82
91
www.flickr.com
yep, the nikon 18-200 has an msrp of ~$650. It's one of the better super zooms out there.
 
Last edited:

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,248
3,673
126
example photos (minus whatever compression Gphotos automatically adds in). i did do post-processing (cropping, brightness/contrast/shadows/etc., sharpening, smoothing, etc.)
34mm
200mm
 
Last edited:

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,631
6,992
136
This is a pretty sick lens for micro 4/3 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1644555-REG/olympus_v313030bu000_8_25mm_m_zuiko_digital_ed.html

Olympus 8-25 constant f4 so that's a FF equiv of 16-50. You can get true wide angle landscapes and cityscapes, and still have enough zoom to get classic 35mm shots or a tiny bit of zoom after.

The beauty of M43 is the size and weight of the lenses. I see so many reviews where they compare a M43 body to a FF Sony Mirrorless body, which are similar in size for capabilities, but in the pros and cons mention everything but the fact the M43 lenses are half the weight and size. Carrying all that crap around with FF gear is what turned me off, M43 was an illuminating experience.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY