What's your favourite 'all-purpose' lens?

Trouser_Press

Say you're heading out for the day, you can only bring one lens (humour me!). The weather conditions are mixed, dark skies and rain one minute, grey the next, blue skies and sunshine after that. You'll be shooting outdoors for part of the day (landscapes, people, misc close-ups), indoors later on. In other words there's a bit of everything in there. What lens would you choose?

gloobag

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L. It very rarely leaves the front of my camera. A 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 would be a decent all rounder as well.

whitetea

Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED... Looks preety close to the one above. What can I say... Great lens

af_thefragile

considering the only 3 lenses i've got.
I'ld say the 18-55 kit lens is the one i use the most as it seems to be the best compromise.
The 50mm f1.8 is good too but a little limited with its field of view and the 18-55's IS sorta compensates for the slower shutter speeds it requires...

Thirdfox

Well the 18-55 is the poor man's 28-80 I like mine (even if it is rather old - sans VR, and has slightly unsharp corners wide open).

But at 35mm (50mm equivalent on FX) and F8 - it is as sharp as most of the expensive juggernauts here.

One lens that I'd certainly consider buying would be the 16-85mm VRII - gives much better quality than the 18-200, and the extra field of view from the wide side is much more important than the relatively small gain on the tele side of the 200mm (which doesn't reach 200mm if you focus on anything within 25 feet I believe).

quilmore

+1 to nikon's 24-70

Cabaal

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8, I can't yet afford the Canon version of the lens

soccerc

Another Nikon 24-70 fan

Panhour

50mm, Its small and light and the least obtrustive.....

rymus

muchos love to the Canon 24-70 2.8L. Mine lives on the camera about 85% of the time.

GhostInTheRuins

I've planning to get a 35mm f2 as a light all purpose lens, at the moment though it's an 18-200 Vr for me.

Tactical

+1 for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L

A brilliant all rounder peice of glass capable for very high quality images. Now of only I could match its potential...:rolleyes:

trishw78

Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L

AnimalRights

Canon 24-105L IS
The total all round lens on a Full Frame camera, wide and zoom.

trishw78

24-105L that's on my shopping list

Borderfox

As gloobag said 24-70L and possible 50 f1.4 instead

jackdaw

24-70 f2.8 L Canon ...


allthough maybe ill be putting the 17-40 f4L on more soon

duffarama

Zuiko 12-60 F2.8-4 SWD

Wide to telephoto (24mm to 120mm in 35mm terms) quick focussing, sharp across the frame and at all apertures. Fully dust and weather sealed too.

challengemaster

I've 3 lenses - 24-70L, 70-200L and 50 f/1.8 and can't really fault any of them. Each gets as much use as the next tbh.

Given the conditions you're mentioning, I'd probably bring the 24-70L. Wide angle enough for landscapes, decent zoom length for portraits...

challengemaster

duffarama wrote: »

Zuiko 12-60 F2.8-4 SWD

Wide to telephoto (24mm to 120mm in 35mm terms) quick focussing, sharp across the frame and at all apertures. Fully dust and weather sealed too.

70mm sensor size? WTF?

kgiller

challengemaster wrote: »

70mm sensor size? WTF?

Olympus have 2X crop factor which is what he's trying to say, but got it backwards. Its 12-60 on 35mm terms, 24-120 on 2X crop.

duffarama

No I think I was right...

The lens is a 12-60 but gives the same field of view as a 24-120 on 35mm.

Dragan

This is actually a decision i am trying to make myself at the moment. I have three lenses, the 50mm 1.8, the 17-85mm kit lens and the 70-300mm.

Right now, for an all round lens, the 1.8 would be winning. I have just found it to be very versatile and to force a certain abstraction which i like.

The 17-85 is a sweet, sweet lens though.

run_Forrest_run

Considering it's the one I spent my money on in NYC, I have to go for the AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR...It's a fine lens, so far so good.

Morrisseeee

Zuiko 12-60 F2.8-4 SWD

...you big tease

Mine is probably the 28mm F2.8 pentax prime (or the 14-42mm Oly kit lens)

duffarama

Morrisseeee wrote: »

...you big tease

Mine is probably the 28mm F2.8 pentax prime (or the 14-42mm Oly kit lens)

Touché

Although I tend not to use my OM 28mm f2.8 prime much on my Olympus E body for some reason... It sits on the camera a lot but I'm not comfortable with the field of view.

CabanSail

Mine is the 18-200 VR is my all purpose lens. Seems to cover most general situations.

I do like the sound of the 16-85 VRII but one has to live within the Budget set by the "Ministry of Finance & War"

GhostInTheRuins

CabanSail wrote: »

Mine is the 18-200 VR is my all purpose lens. Seems to cover most general situations.

I do like the sound of the 16-85 VRII but one has to live within the Budget set by the "Ministry of Finance & War"

What would you gain from the 16-85 compared to the 18-200? Apart from a measly 2mm at the wide end and (possibly?) less barrel distortion, why would you want/need both? Just wondering, maybe there's something I'm missing

shrapnel222

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

Considering it's the one I spent my money on in NYC, I have to go for the AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR...It's a fine lens, so far so good.

same here, that's the one i would bring most of the time, but these days, my 24mm 1.8 never leaves the camera.

humberklog

Carl Ziess 28mm.

Sleepy

af_thefragile wrote: »

considering the only 3 lenses i've got.
I'ld say the 18-55 kit lens is the one i use the most as it seems to be the best compromise.
The 50mm f1.8 is good too but a little limited with its field of view and the 18-55's IS sorta compensates for the slower shutter speeds it requires...

Almost the exact same as that...

Either the 50mm 1.8 or the kit 18-55IS gets most use as the walkaround lens...

CabanSail

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

What would you gain from the 16-85 compared to the 18-200? Apart from a measly 2mm at the wide end and (possibly?) less barrel distortion, why would you want/need both? Just wondering, maybe there's something I'm missing

I have heard that the 16-85 VRII is sharper. It's not the sort of difference that would warrant a change, but if I were buying now I may have gone that way instead.

I do find the 18-200 to be a very versatile lens & it really does cover a lot of ground with surprisingly few compromises.

ThOnda

Canon 24-70/2.8L and nifty fifty (1.8) instead of my snack. I'd rather have the nifty with me knowing that I could catch up some food in the evening.

Dink

soccerc wrote: »

Another Nikon 24-70 fan

And another one!

RoadRunner

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (or tokina 11-16)

SBPhoto

Canon 24-70/2.8L Great all purpose lens

Deliverance XXV

Strangely enough it's the one that came with the camera, The Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Despite owning three other lenses that is by far my most used lens.

bloox

jackdaw wrote: »

24-70 f2.8 L Canon ...


allthough maybe ill be putting the 17-40 f4L on more soon

i must agree with you ,and a nice combination tough :rolleyes:

pippatee

Canon 24-105L ... great allrounder ...

SteveDPirate

Dragan wrote: »

This is actually a decision i am trying to make myself at the moment. I have three lenses, the 50mm 1.8, the 17-85mm kit lens and the 70-300mm.

Right now, for an all round lens, the 1.8 would be winning. I have just found it to be very versatile and to force a certain abstraction which i like.

The 17-85 is a sweet, sweet lens though.

They are the 3 lenses I have at the mo. Although the 70-300 is a basic Sigma one. I sold the kit lens I got with my 400D and bought a 17-85 on adverts. Delighted with it. Really versatile and very sharp for a novice like myself.

I very rarely use the 50mm tho. Just find it restrictive at times for a walkabout lens. I was in Barcelona last summer, tried to use just that, but got frustrated with it, and ended up using the 18-55 most of the time. Should really get more use out of it.

silverside

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5

The 50mm f1.8 is a good backup when it's dark and i don't want to use flash

The improvement over the kit lens is dramatic - a constant F2.8 like the L series would be even better but obviously more expensive

sineadw

Cabaal wrote: »

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8, I can't yet afford the Canon version of the lens

+1!

Rael

Canon 17-55mm F/2.8, very rarely leaves my camera. Although there are times I wish it was a little longer

Duchovny

Canon 27-40L F2.8 its just amazing.

bradnailer

I'm kind of stuck for choice as I only own one broad range zoom Sigma 50-500 it's like having a bag of lenses with you and weighs about the same:D

SBPhoto

Duchovny wrote: »

Canon 27-40L F2.8 its just amazing.

27-40L F2.8 Is this a mistype?

Fionn

i've got an EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM which is very sharp at and a bit sharper than the 16 - 35 mm f 2.8. very good low light lens also, can be deployed as a landscape lens too, so it would be my one lens if such a restriction was to be imposed!

thebaz

Cabaal wrote: »

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8, I can't yet afford the Canon version of the lens

I can't afford the Nikon version yet, or for a long time - recession -

is the Sigma version good eneogh ?
Cheers

quilmore

thebaz wrote: »

is the Sigma version good eneogh ?
Cheers

barry, the new model of the sigma seems to be pretty good
see here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://review.fengniao.com/124/1249443.html

also, read here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1027&thread=31145120

Duchovny

SBPhoto wrote: »

27-40L F2.8 Is this a mistype?

Ups sorry it is 24-70L :P

thebaz

the Sigma 28 - 70 f2.8 is a lot cheaper, anyone know is this a bargain, or is there a catch ? (usually is)