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:
- Sigma 28-45mm 1:1.8 A DG DN (only for Leica L and Sony E / FE)
- Sigma 28-105mm 1:2.8 A DG DN (only for Leica L and Sony E / FE)
- Canon Lens RF 28-70mm F2 L USM (Canon RF only)
- Canon Lens RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z (Canon RF only)
- Sony FE 2 / 28-70 GM (2024, for Full Frame mirrorless cameras, Sony E / FE)
- There are rumors that the lens should appear soon Tamron 28-180mm f/2.8 Di III VC VXDI'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.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval.
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 if it were taken out of my mouth, I just thought about the “Smena-8m”. I don’t remember what focal length it was, but it was almost universally sufficient. When I bought the “Zenit E” with the “Industar” lens, it was sad, sometimes there wasn’t enough space in the apartment to step away and capture the whole group. So the fixed lens is enough for myself, but if something special, for professional use, then you can’t do without a kit. I remember old photographers, they had three or four cameras hanging on them, fortunately they were light, these film cameras. It’s not just about the lenses, back then the film sensitivity in different cameras was different, so they dragged a garland.
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
As a lover of photo hunting and portraiture, “Sigma 180mm/3,5 macro.” I use a Nikon crop lens. 270mm (equivalent to 35), of course, it’s too much for a portrait, but it’s still possible. You can “get” animals with this focal length, and of course insects!
For interesting animals, 180\270 is not enough, very little. +Sigma macro-slow (slow).
Slow, no doubt! It’s often difficult to aim manually. The price is tolerable! And an excellent branded lens with such a focal length and aperture ratio is very expensive. 180mm. suitable for portraits and for shooting animals in nature reserves, birds near feeders (if not) and this is a MACRO lens that means insects. For birds on the tops of trees you need a 500-600 mm lens with a teleconverter and working ISO 6400. It would probably be tolerable p1000 s a screwed-on hood and an inch matrix, but with its 2,3″???
Arkady, there is a rumor that Sony will soon roll out the 24-70 with constant f2 from their G-master line
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/list-of-upcoming-e-mount-autofocus-lenses-from-sony-viltrox-meike-and-others/
It is high time, Canon Lens RF 28-70mm F2 L USM for 5 years already.
Tell me, is the Sony A7S + Sigma 100-400mm F/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary Sony E combination suitable for a beginner as a more or less universal option for photographing nature and animals (the rest is based on the residual principle)? Over time, other lenses will be added, but this Sigma, in addition to being used as a superzoom, is even suitable for portrait photography, they say.
as a first lens - it will be difficult
But is the solution technically suitable? For now, there is a simple non-professional device for learning photography, with a non-replaceable lens with a large zoom, and then you can hone your skills using this combination.
In film times... My father shot on Chaika with Industar 69 2.8/28. In most cases of life. But most likely it's the camera. Super compact for those times and 72 frames per cassette. I grew up to Zenit. I tried many variations of the stew. But somehow it turned out that everything had 50mm glass. It is clear that at that time this was normal, although the alternative was known.
In digital time.. The number of carcasses is as follows.. Nikon D40, D300, D750, D850
When I was actively shooting on the D300.. I almost never shot Nikkor 16-85 3.5/5.6 from the body. An excellent crop lens (maybe the best one) that covers all tasks except shooting in the dark (definitely in churches). For darkness there was always nikkor 35mm 1.8
Then the D300 went to my wife. She didn’t remove 16-85 from the carcass at all. And I took a lot of good shots. Then 16-85 died and she hasn’t removed 35 1.8 from the carcass for many years. Personally, I think that the d300 is the best cropped camera (I briefly held many different cropped ones in my hands) with one drawback - it is noisy in the dark. Everything else is at the highest level for three kopecks in price.
I got a D750 and used a Tamron 24-70 2.8 of the first generation for it (there was no other one then). Then it was all sold and I took the D850 and again the Tamron 24-70, but this time of the second generation. I think that both of these tamrons are better than their native analogues at a lower price. Now I always take this pair with me and it covers all the tasks. Even in the dark, because the d750 has a high working ISO. The D850 is even higher. That is, the lack of aperture ratio (2.8) does not play a role even in churches.
Now that I have the opportunity to take with me not only one camera, but something else... I take a high-aperture lens with me. But just in case, I don’t really use it. And Jupiter 37A 135/3.5 for slow shooting portraits on the street. It looks very nice on him. But when I have no time, I still shoot portraits with Tamron at 70mm. And the bulbous nature of Tamron’s bokeh doesn’t spoil it at all.
That is, for me from real experience:
– at full frame, an almost permanent lens is the Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 and it is better than its native counterpart, even when the Nikkor appeared with a stub.
– on crops, non-removable either Nikkor 16-85 3.5-5.6 or Nikkor 35mm 1.8 (probably better than 1.4, but it’s not physically available)
And I forgot a couple more practical nuances.
A pair of D750|850 with Tamron 24-70 is large in size (Tamron has an 82mm front lens) and weighs almost 2 kg without a penny. That is, for the tamron to become absolutely irremovable, you need a shoulder strap and a bag of the selected size to match the size of this pair. Personally, I can’t carry 2kg on my neck for a long time.
Why else do I rarely get Tamron off the carcass?
1. Tamron is such a size that when replacing it with any other lens, I have nowhere to put it, only in a bag, which is not always on my shoulder while working. And even if the bag is nearby, I still haven’t learned to change the tamron for something just by standing with both hands. I changed other lenses on the fly while standing, and very quickly.
2. Tamron’s arm length of 70mm is sometimes specifically not enough. But in my arsenal, everything longer is manual. Plus, I often shoot holding only a camera body with Tamron in my hands. And when there's not enough arm length (having a D850), I just go to 45 megapixel. And then, when processing, I crop and zoom in on the object as I need almost without loss of quality (megapixel allows). That is, I would say that my Tamron works like 24-105 approximately. Or maybe even like 24-120.
3. I said above that in my pair the zoom aperture 2.8 is enough even in the dark. Yes... But very occasionally, in particularly dark churches, I still start to burn out at long shutter speeds and ISO 1600 and higher. Of course, the difference between 2.8 and 1.8 (especially 1.4) is really huge. But in a pair of 2.8 on the D850 this does not matter in 95 percent of cases. And in the remaining 5, ingenuity, experience and various perversions (such as a monopod and/or serial shooting in the dark) help out.
And the last remark. Naturally, I ALWAYS shoot in RAW (NEF) and then post everything with ACR. This is an important condition. And in difficult cases I always shoot in M, otherwise the camera tries to do it perfectly and ruins everything (even such a super Mercedes as the D850). I switch to A-mode only in strong light to increase efficiency. I switch to S-only in sports or shooting fountains/waterfalls, that is, rarely. I never use P at all. Either I didn’t learn, or I just don’t understand why R is there when there is ASM :)) And starting from the D300 there is simply no green zone on the camera (I’m not lying, it seemed to be on the D750, but I don’t remember exactly, because I didn’t use it chronically). I rarely take a flash with me and use it even less often. I don’t like flash pictures, I’m not used to it, plus it’s not allowed in churches.
Now, before the release of Sigma 28-45 1.8, the Sigma 35 1.2 was truly universal. But since 1.2 is still used quite rarely, I began to “don’t shoot” 28-45 more often. Maybe the bokeh on it is less blurry, but it seems to me that it is more artistic there + you can still play with focal lengths. And this is usually my working focal range, which is why I don’t like 24-70. For me, it’s better to have two 28-45 lenses and some 85-135 aperture lens. The first is for landscape photos, the second is for portraits. basically that's all.
But, it seems to me, there will definitely be a high-aperture zoom focal continuation of the 28-45, maybe not 1.8, but 2 or 2.8 compact.
Samyang AF 35-150 f/2-2.8
I would really like to have it for my a7c