That one lens under $1000
- Thread starter nikond90
- Start date
With DX, the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 DX lens will probably be more useful. A used lens normally cost less than $950 since a lot of people have shifted to FX.
For FX cameras, 24-120mm f4 VRII has also my vote.
I doubt any such lens actually exists and if it did, I doubt it could be had for less than a grand. If it did, it would be, as the saying goes, a "jack of all trades and a master of none"
You cannot get something for nothing (ok enough cliches) and a lens which has a focal length in the range you think is necessary would probably be slow, as so many zooms are. Granted, I don't use zooms, which is why I lug 10 Nikkors in my bag most times from 16mm to 300mm, but I am sure if you really want a lens which will be your "every" lens, it will actually be 2 or maybe 3 and might very well include a fast prime.
You cannot get something for nothing (ok enough cliches) and a lens which has a focal length in the range you think is necessary would probably be slow, as so many zooms are. Granted, I don't use zooms, which is why I lug 10 Nikkors in my bag most times from 16mm to 300mm, but I am sure if you really want a lens which will be your "every" lens, it will actually be 2 or maybe 3 and might very well include a fast prime.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I'm very happy with the 18-105 for most everything. Oh sure, sometimes I wish it was f1.8 at 105mm, or weighed a few ounce less, but I've learned to relax and, when needed, fix things in post. If the 18-105 comes off it's probably because I'm switching to a 35mm prime and, fortunately for me (and my budget), these two lenses cover 99% of what I shoot. I think most of the time it's not about what lens will let you do what you want, so much as figuring out how to get what you want with the lens you already have.
That is a good approach, unfortunatley for me, after over 30 years of picture taking with Nikons, you accumulate all of those "man I really wish I had ______ lens for this" and before you know it you have enmassed a dozen Nikkors from 16mm fisheye to 600mm super telephoto, not including the 2 UW Nikkors for the Nikonos!
based upon your description of 1 lens that allows portraits to zooms, then I would second the 18x200 or 18x300..
Sure,, not ultimate quality, but totally capable of fine pictures, I know family and friends that have bought exactly that combo,, and well, let's just say,, they don't change their lens.
Sure,, not ultimate quality, but totally capable of fine pictures, I know family and friends that have bought exactly that combo,, and well, let's just say,, they don't change their lens.
It can be sigma or tamron. Today for the first time ever I saw a hummingbird and I had my 18-55 kit lens and I was pissed off I couldn't get a pic of it. And most my other pics also I needed more than 55mm I wonder if the 18-105 would've made a difference.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
With the instant rebate going on, Adorama is selling the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR II for less than $700 (free shipping). If I were in the market, and had a or so grand to blow on glass, I'd snag one of those and run like a thief.
No one lens can do all. The closest I get to "having" to go with one lens for me is travel. For this I use a D7000 with a Tamron 18-270 VC and throw in my 35/1.8G for low light. It's as light as I'll I go and will easy come in under a $1K.
IMHO, your wasting one of the great features of a DSLR if you don't change lenses to suit conditions.
IMHO, your wasting one of the great features of a DSLR if you don't change lenses to suit conditions.
Last edited: