That is the problem with threads such as this. Everyone has a different shooting style and taste. No one can really suggest a lens without really knowing the poster. We also all have different opinions about what one would need or want in most cases. I haven't used my 35 1.8 in a while now. I keep my 18-200 on all the time, but it fits what I shoot...obviously covering just about anything other than macro and super tele and it isn't fast.

studio460 said:
Right there with ya, Drab.

About 3 months ago, I only took my 105mm macro thinking shooting flowers. Once I arrived there, there was a fantastic Chinese lantern exposition and I got so frustrated with my lens choice. Lucky enough for me, it was easy to go back the next day but that though me a lesson about bringing only a long lens. I will never go anywhere without my 24-70 or at least primes in that range.

Drab said:
I'm finding the variety of opinions here quite fascinating . . . Everything from 70-200 for landscapes vs 17-50 for landscapes, vs 35 on DX being too wide.

Yup! Fascinating!

Drab said:
Clearly we have quite the mix of "traditionalists" and what I can only describe (with my limited understanding of the phenomenon) as nuevo telephotoists.

"Nouvaeu Telephotoists." I like that. I think part of the reason why I see so many amateur photogs with D-whatevers strapped around their necks with only an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens mounted, is due to the perception of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 as a "sexy" lens. It's fast. It's expensive. And, it's big and LONG (I think that says it all!).

I do think the 70-200mm f/2.8 is sexy. It's especially sexy when used for what it's designed. But, just as sexy, I think, is having a 35mm f/2.0, or 85mm f/1.8 on your D-whatever, and getting close enough to your subject to compose an interesting shot. Sure, that's not always possible, practical, permissible, or easy, but that's part of the art, technique, and challenge of photography--positioning your camera exactly where it needs to be to compose the ideal frame for your particular field-of-view, and by deliberately and consciously determining the precise degree of exaggerated, or foreshortened perspective, suitable for that shot. In my opinion, THAT'S photography!

Drab said:
I don't wish to call out names, but I would really like (perhaps new thread?) some explanation from those proposing ANYTHING longer than 50mm equivalent as their one lens. It just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught..

Right there with ya, Drab.

heartyfisher said:
Me? shy? heh! .. i will put up a new thread :-)

Ha! I like my lenses either long and fast, or short and wide (and fast). I generally take two kinds of shots:

1. Wide-angle, with nominal-to-deep, depth-of-field.
2. Telephoto, with minimal depth-of-field.

That's why I have absolutely no use for an f/5.6 105mm lens (as in the 18-105mm VR kit lens I have waiting to list on Ebay).

Drab said:
150 on DX?

Wow. I can't even imagine.

I'd love a sample if you're not shy. If you are I understand.

Me? shy? heh! .. i will put up a new thread :-)

150 on DX?

Wow. I can't even imagine.

I'd love a sample if you're not shy. If you are I understand.

Drab said:
...
I don't wish to call out names, but I would really like (perhaps new thread?) some explanation from those proposing ANYTHING longer than 50mm equivalent as their one lens. It just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Outside of "event" photography and portraits I can probably fit all my > 85mm shots on one contact sheet. Maybe there is a world out there I don't know I'm missing? It just seems to me that telephoto is exactly (big, heavy, impersonal, depth removing) what one would drop first when on a (non-wildlife) tour.

Hi Drab,

These kinds of questions posted by the OPs are so impossible to answer without knowing what they like to shoot. the 18-105 suggested by mike is the "general cover 90% of the people)" answer. But I am one of the people who could very happily take my 150mm F2.8 Prime macro and shoot all day in the city with it. Its just my "eye" and how I love to view my world. I just don't understand wide angles ! its a challenge for me. One that I have set myself to conquer but thats for when I am not procrastinating. when I am relaxed and wanting to enjoy my photography I put my 150mm lens on and walk around.

crocodilo said:
Hey, I live in Europe, but if I were to go to the Americas armed with only one lens on my D7000 I'd take the 35 1.8, no doubt about it.

Personally, I would go a bit wider: if shooting DX, an AF 20mm f/2.8D (30mm-equivalent) is a nice choice for a DX travel lens. It's very compact and relatively fast. The 20mm is a nice "in-between" focal length on DX.

In fact, if you're on a budget, and are able to take two lenses on a DX-junket, I'd then probably suggest either the AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D or 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR for your wide-angle, and the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for your short-tele.

Personally, I love wide angle lenses so I'd go with a wide lens. You mentioned the 70-200 being too heavy and that is definately true. Therefore, the 14-24 would be probably out. I love 35mm and 50mm but they are not wide enough although you could easily take over %50 of your shots with these. If I had one lens only it would probably be a 28mm. The 24-70 is also a good choice but again too heavy.

Hey, I live in Europe, but if I were to go to the Americas armed with only one lens on my D7000 I'd take the 35 1.8, no doubt about it. It's not like I have lots of choices, and the 18-105 is quite versatile, but I kinda like the discipline of a prime coupled with the sharpness and low-light capability of the 35mm (the reason to prevent me from taking other lenses should also restrict a speedlight).

Then again, I'm obviously not a pro...

That's quite a spectrum of opinions, so I'll chime in, too. If you are going to be touring old buildings and old sections of cities, I don't think a 35 on a DX camera is anywhere near wide enough. Panos are fine in concept, but not always practical.

Then I'll take a 18-55, ____, and my 70-200mm. As for the last lens, I'm stuck between 35 1.8 and 50 1.4 ... These are on a D7000. I know the 35 will become 53mm, and the 50 becomes 75mm... hmm... Might need the 35 more.

Really the only way the 70-200 or 80-200 would be viable as an only lens in any case would be if you were shooting people and or animals. In the case of the animals it might not be long enough still.

I would tend to recommend wider over telephoto. I have looked before and I know most of my shots fall within 2 ranges. Either 18-55 or 170-200 range. So being I know I would be somewhere (like in the city with buildings) I would be taking any sort of landscapes and things I would go with the wide side.

Drab, your suggestion of a 50mm I think is spot on. I only suggested a 24-70 because I personally would like to have the flexibility of that focal length and a bit either side. A bit of telephoto might come in handy for candids etc, and a wider angle useful for architecture etc? Just what I'd take if I was limited to 1.

Drab said:
I'm finding the variety of opinions here quite fascinating.
Everything from 70-200 for landscapes vs 17-50 for landscapes, vs 35 on DX being too wide.

Clearly we have quite the mix of "traditionalists" and what I can only describe (with my limited understanding of the phenomenon) as nuevo telephotoists.

I don't wish to call out names, but I would really like (perhaps new thread?) some explanation from those proposing ANYTHING longer than 50mm equivalent as their one lens. It just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Outside of "event" photography and portraits I can probably fit all my > 85mm shots on one contact sheet. Maybe there is a world out there I don't know I'm missing? It just seems to me that telephoto is exactly (big, heavy, impersonal, depth removing) what one would drop first when on a (non-wildlife) tour.

Hi Drab,

I wouldn't take the big sumbitch either.

In looking at the post, I made some assumptions that I likely shouldn't have made. One was that he was paying out of his own pocket and he wanted to do things cheaply as possible (there was zero basis for that), and he would be in an urbane environment doing street photography and that he would be comfortable with getting close to his subjects - again, there really wasn't much of a basis for that either.

If that were true, then he would be better off by going to a lens that gives good range - I think the 17-105 has best sharpness and contrast (although users shy from it because it's a kit lens) throughout the range. From it's widest to F11, it will be sharp.

The 35mm will be his fast 'street' lens approximating the view of the human eye. While a wider lens would be nice. That DX lens at a faster speed in prime isn't made yet.

In the DX world, I'd take the stock 17-105 - light and sharp, and the normal 35mm 1.8 or 1.4.

At least, that's how I see it.

My best.

Mike

I'm finding the variety of opinions here quite fascinating.
Everything from 70-200 for landscapes vs 17-50 for landscapes, vs 35 on DX being too wide.

Clearly we have quite the mix of "traditionalists" and what I can only describe (with my limited understanding of the phenomenon) as nuevo telephotoists.

I don't wish to call out names, but I would really like (perhaps new thread?) some explanation from those proposing ANYTHING longer than 50mm equivalent as their one lens. It just flies in the face of everything I was ever taught. Outside of "event" photography and portraits I can probably fit all my > 85mm shots on one contact sheet. Maybe there is a world out there I don't know I'm missing? It just seems to me that telephoto is exactly (big, heavy, impersonal, depth removing) what one would drop first when on a (non-wildlife) tour.

tcole1983 said:
I would rather take the cheap 18-55 kit lens then the 35 f1.8.

Agreed! For DX bodies, the 18-55mm VR lens is inexpensive, and gives a lot of bang for the buck. It's compact, tack-sharp, and pretty wide . . . plus, it has VR. Due to its lack of speed and fragile build quality, however, it wouldn't be my only lens, but it seems to always be in my bag.

soshigee said:
Now for wide... disagree on 35? :o Hmm.. I have a limited budget and I won't be doing Europe. I'll be doing places like Vancouver, LA, NYC, and cities of those sort. I don't think I need the ultra wide, and thinking that the 35 1.8 will do good (and it's cheap^^)

The 35 1.8 is a good lens, but taking that as your only wide angle could limit your shots quite a bit. If you can, I'd try to pick up a 17-50mm 2.8.

soshigee said:
I have no problems carrying my bulk. I guess 70-200mm is a given since I would need it's zoom and portrait capabilites.

Then, I would suggest taking more than two lenses.

soshigee said:
Now for wide... disagree on 35? I have a limited budget and I won't be doing Europe. I'll be doing places like Vancouver, LA, NYC, and cities of those sort. I don't think I need the ultra wide, and thinking that the 35 1.8 will do good (and it's cheap^^)

A 35mm lens on a DX body isn't a wide-angle lens at all--it's only a normal lens (52.5mm-equivalent). Cities, such as those you mentioned (especially NYC), do benefit a great deal, from ultra-wides.

I would never take a prime as my only lens. Just my style of shooting I know there would be shots I couldn't get if I couldn't zoom in and out. Just my opinion, but I think you will be disappointed soshigee with the wideness of the 35 f1.8. IMO I would rather take the cheap 18-55 kit lens then the 35 f1.8.

I have no problems carrying my bulk. I guess 70-200mm is a given since I would need it's zoom and portrait capabilites.

Now for wide... disagree on 35? :o Hmm.. I have a limited budget and I won't be doing Europe. I'll be doing places like Vancouver, LA, NYC, and cities of those sort. I don't think I need the ultra wide, and thinking that the 35 1.8 will do good (and it's cheap^^)

LoveTheBerry said:
I am touring Europe and can only carry one lens (yeah,..I know), what would be your choice?

If I could take ONLY one lens:

DX
1. AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G.

FX
1. AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G.

The above "35mm-equivalent" focal lengths are moderately wide, for accommodating scenics, yet not so wide that they'll introduce excessive barrel distortion for portraits. The ultra-fast apertures allow you to take both low-light scenics, and portraits with shallow depth-of-field.

soshigee said:
Sorry for stealing the topic but I don't want to make another thread just for a simple question

If I have a DX, and I'm able to choose 2 lenses for touring cities, portraiting, and I guess just any random thing that catches my eye, what would you take? I'm thinking 35mm 1.8 and 70-200mm 2.8

If I could take ONLY two lenses:

DX
1. One ultrawide: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX (scenics).
2. A fast, short telephoto: AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G (portraits).

DX budget version:

1. AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D or AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (scenics).
2. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D (portraits).

FX
1. One fast, wide-angle: AF-S 24mm f/1.4G (scenics).
2. A fast, short telephoto: AF-S NIkkor 85mm f/1.4G (portraits).

FX budget version:

1. AF Nikkor 24mm or 28mm f/2.8D (scenics).
2. AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D (portraits).

The two-lens pairings, suggested above, give you both a fast wide- or ultra-wide, allowing you to capture the most sprawling (or, most towering) scenics at any time of the day (dusk, dawn, twilight, etc.). The fast, short-telephotos get you shallow depth-of-field with ease, plus a bit of foreshortening for more flattering portraits.

Hi,

The stock kit 17-105mm is a pretty good lens (and doesn't get the credit it deserves). It's not very fast, but it's light, versatile, and very sharp. The 35mm 1.8 is cheap and sharp. Those two lenses are easily justified for any DX kit or trip

My best,

Mike

17-50/17-55...I take mostly landscapes

I love my 70-200mm 2.8 but I find it a little bulky and long for city stuff on DX. I love wide angles. I would take something that starts with 12-18mm.

I take a 12-24 and a 24-120 with one prime within 35, 50, or 85mm depending on the environment.