One lens to rule the world. Sending to the ring of omnipotence
What is the only lens to take for permanent use? The one and only for all occasions. The lens to which I would like to strive. That one high-quality lens, by buying which, you could solve all your photo tasks and not torment the camera with a constant change of lenses, but your thoughts by choosing something new. Nowadays it is extremely difficult to manage with one lens, but nevertheless, what to choose in this case?
Personally, I would look at:
- Fixed lens Sigma 35mm 1:1.2 DG DN A (only for Leica L and Sony E / FE)
- Zoom lens Canon Lens RF 28-70mm F2 L USM (Canon RF only)
- Zoom lens Canon Lens RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z (Canon RF only)
- Rumor has it that Canon Lens RF 35mm F is coming soon1.2 L (only for Canon RF), I'm really looking forward to its announcement
- Tamron 35-150mm f /2-2.8 Di III VXD Model A058, but still a pity that there is no update of the old Tamron SP AF Aspherical LD [IF] 28-105mm 1: 2.8
- Samyang AF 35-150/2-2.8FE
- Interesting alternative opinion here
- More about my video here
The question of whether it is rational to use only one lens lies in a completely different plane. The same goes for system selection. In the comments, I ask you to concentrate and write about which single lens you would personally choose for everyday amateur or professional use. I suspect that it will be interesting to many.
For more information, see the section 'Autofocus fixes with the highest aperture','Especially fast lenses from the Middle Kingdom'and'Fastest zoom lenses ''.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.com.Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Personal opinion: The best lens is the one that does not “lather”, does not distort, does not glitch, does not cost like a cast-iron bridge and does not exist. And the best lens for me was the Smena-8M lens, with which I took my best photo of the main building of the Tomsk Polytechnic, early in the morning, back in 1978 ... It's a pity, but that black and white photo with stunning light and shadow transitions on the facade of the building of the late XNUMXth century is preserved only in my memory ...
This will be the most boring lens! A good lens is an optically imperfect dark and moody lens. It is the limitation in the visual means that leads to the creative process !!
Unfortunately, a person evaluates subjectively. And even in childhood and adolescence, all emotions are stronger than in adulthood.
For me personally, the sound of broadbands tucked into plastic buckets of cotton wool from the top panel of the record player Melody 1xx from the ABBA brand record in 1982 is unforgettable ...
And now I hardly get any pleasure from the equipment, where only a pair of speaker cables cost 1600 dollars, and a CD player with an initial cost of 3-4 thousand dollars is tweaked with Schottky diodes, and the capacitor for opening the disc tray is reduced so much that you need to press the button several times , to open.
What does “tweeked with Schottky diodes” mean?
why reduce the capacitor “opening the disc tray?
This is for a warm lamp, do not pay attention.
As the most popular Nikon AF-S nikkor 16-85mm remained - universal in my opinion.
Unexpectedly, the T-22 from the first Smena became the most versatile for me. Only the lid is visible from the 60D carcass). For the city, and macro is enough for me. But it will not work for birds, but not enough for landscapes.
If you dream, then the ideal option is a 28-200 / 2.8 apochromat, with a resolution of 80 lines / mm, light filters on snaps, like covers. For any system, if only ISO 4000 is fully operational :)
tamron af 28-200mm f / 2,8-5,6 di iii rxd
closest to ideal. Probably haven't tried
I have been shooting Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54 / 2.8-3.5 4/3 for over 10 years. Satisfied. With a set of fifty dollars, and among them a really fantastic Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar, I rarely want to change the lens - even when shooting a portrait. In principle, this is what I was counting on at the beginning, but I did not quite expect that such a lens with the equivalent of 28-108 would become practically irreplaceable ....
For my Sony ILCE-6000 I use Neewer 2.8 / 28 or 7Artisans 0.95 / 35 as a staff. One and only one does not work.
I can't get by with the only one yet because of the cost of what I want (Sony 18-105mm f / 4 G OSS PZ E). I think for me it would be that one universal lens. Now I mostly manage not very good stock Sony 16-50mm f / 3.5-5.6, which is enough for almost everything. But sometimes I use Jupiter 37A. I think a 105 mm focus would be more in demand for me than a 135 mm one.
Vitaly, discover the secret of 16 - 50 Sony. After nikors - soap soap.
For me, this lens is the Tamron 35-150mm F / 2.8-4 Di VC, which for some reason is not loved by many ..
For me Pentax DFA 28-105mm, F3.5-5.6
I, as a beginner amateur photographer, having two Nikon cameras (film f801s and D800), having 50mm 1.4D, would like 24-120 with stabilizer and enlightenment.
I have an Olympus m1 mark3 with 14-150. Today I photographed cones on a pine tree. The length is not enough. At 4 meters, the cones turned out to be too small.
It is strange that the author mentioned Sigma and Tamron among the best. They were not even the best when they were produced in Japan. And now, when the Tamron is completely plastic, I don’t want to look at them at all. It's just deshman! I had a Sigma, and in general - a good lens, but when I decided to sell it, I just got tired - I sold it for a very real price for 9 months and eventually bought some strange man who did not ask a single question about the operation of the lens - most likely outbid.
and what did you have from Sigma and Tamrons?
“I bought some strange man who didn’t ask a single question about the operation of the lens”
Not necessarily outbid, perhaps the person knew where to look and had an idea how everything should work.
Just not all owners will tell the truth.
It's like a joke about cars: “not beaten, not painted, etc.”
Outbids mostly call when the price is below the baseboard, and outwardly the lens in the pictures looks normal.
this is the same lens ...
really exists, please note
Nikon 35-400 f4.5 constant
Sonnar 50 1.5 zm. Very imperfect ideal
Everyone wants to try it. I might loosen up.
I don’t know how it was in the past when there was film. In my opinion, the most relevant lens is the one through which your skills are revealed. More precisely, first of all, skill, and then the lens. For me, Nikon is quite happy with the 18-105 on the crop and the best photos are obtained from this combination, but I simply didn’t have any other glass for the Nikon crop, as I bought a Nikon D90 with 18-105, I still shoot and really like it. On ff Nikon 24-70, well, on ff there was nothing else, but somewhere there is a thought that I would like something wider, for example 16-35 f4 nikorr, or vice versa 24-120 f4 Nikkor. But there is no wish “want” As for Canon, there is a Canon crop and 17-55 f2,8 is basically enough for everything, on Canon most of the shots are in this bunch, sometimes I put 10-18 f;4,5-5,6 on the camera, but that’s sometimes , because a very wide angle is obtained. And here’s a thing, or rather a pattern or something. A combination of Nikon D90 and Nikorr 18-105, it is from this that I take most of the pictures that are very interesting, and more often than not I shoot at 18 mm. But with the Canon crop and 17-55, everything is somehow boring, neither this nor that, the Canon more often lies like the FF Nikon 610 and 24-70.
I know how it was in the past when there was film. Then, for this kind of thing (what you modestly call “skill”), they used, as a last resort, a soap dish. But mostly, they regretted wasting the film. Now you don’t need to regret anything, buy a phone and shoot. But to buy three sets of equipment (2 of which are not bad) for this?
Didn't understand the essence of the question? Is three sets nonsense? I think many people have much more sets and live somehow. The network is used for different purposes.
The essence of the question?))) There is no question. The bottom line is that your photos are trash. Any conscientious photographer would throw this in the trash, or better yet, not photograph it. Both on film and digital.
Surprised! Honestly the word. the photo is exhibited in order to show that there is almost no difference what kind of glass and carcass, and slag or not slag, has no meaning in the context of the question posed by Arkady. It looks like you are too clever with your own opinion.
Yes, of course there is a difference, but it won’t be visible in these photos, which is why the impression is created that there are no differences))
It is small, the difference. There are a lot of factors influencing this difference, light first of all. But these are other questions. And there are hundreds of opinions.
A! I mean, these are great photos! Sorry, Maestro! You understand the varieties of d.r.m much better than me. And my primitive opinion is that d. it is d., don’t take it off.
d610 nikorr24-70
canon 60d 17-55 canon