Best "all round" lens

[rf134a]

What's the best all around lens at a reasonable price? I'm talking about taking your DSLR and a single lens on vacation type setting. It's nice having 5 lenses for different purpose at home, but lugging around those 5 lenses while on vacation is not practical.

I know that a high zoom lens will suffer from barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations at both ends but we're on vacation, so it won't matter much. Just getting the shot makes the distortion worthwhile.

I'm sure a lot of people have or will be picking up a DSLR in a few days, so I hope it helps everyone out.

[Kasakato]

I always bring my 10.5-300mm f/2.8 IF VR ED.

It depends where Im going. If Im going to be shooting tele (wildlife), its my Nikon 70-300; if its in close, fast action (on the street), its the 18-55; if its indoors (museums, etc), its the 50 1.8. If I want to cover my ass for anything, Id get the 18-200...not that Id really want to. All three of my lenses fit nicely into a backpack for longer trips or a shoulder pack for quick trips. I bring all three on all trips, and just take the one or two Ill need for the days events. I always pack the 50 in my pocket, along with the 18-55 or 70-300 mounted.

[SENSEI]

What's the best all around lens at a reasonable price? I'm talking about taking your DSLR and a single lens on vacation type setting. It's nice having 5 lenses for different purpose at home, but lugging around those 5 lenses while on vacation is not practical.

I know that a high zoom lens will suffer from barrel distortion and chromatic aberrations at both ends but we're on vacation, so it won't matter much. Just getting the shot makes the distortion worthwhile.

I'm sure a lot of people have or will be picking up a DSLR in a few days, so I hope it helps everyone out.

You're way of thinking may not apply to everyone. I would rather bring 5 different high-end lenses on a 3 day hike then have 1 less than mediocre lens. Some may think just getting a shot is worthwhile...I say, if I'm never going to get a chance to take the shot again, I'd rather do it properly the first time.

If all I wanted was to show that I was there with barrel distortion, crazy CA, screw it, it may never even end up in the vacation gallery anyways. Use a point and shoot then. Having a DSLR doesn't mean your shots are magically going to turn out better.

It is totally worth while to bring multiple lenses to do the right job. If you ask me, I'd rather bring a G10 or a Canon S5 before bringing a DSLR body and a 18-200 lens. But in the end, it all will depend on the photographer.

[jackwest]

I don't understand. Barrel Distortion, CA, are largely things of the past and my freeware converts my "cheapo" kit lens to L glass performance (+$2000).

Other things can be done with stitching, etc, to add field of view.

Crops and fish eyes aside, I don't know of any picture I've ever seen that could not have been taken identically with one kit lens.

[Kasakato]

I don't understand. Barrel Distortion, CA, are largely things of the past and my freeware converts my "cheapo" kit lens to L glass performance (+$2000).

Other things can be done with stitching, etc, to add field of view.

Crops and fish eyes aside, I don't know of any picture I've ever seen that could not have been taken identically with one kit lens.

Software does not turn f/5.6 into f/2.8. Theres always going to be a difference in bokeh, colour rendition, sharpness, etc. Distortion and CA are definite problems with kit lenses.

[djmr2]

Software does not turn f/5.6 into f/2.8. Theres always going to be a difference in bokeh, colour rendition, sharpness, etc. Distortion and CA are definite problems with kit lenses.

+1.56 my homie knows wut he's talking about.

[jackwest]

And? A $100 prime beats your f2.8 L glass in focal length...

Equipment reviews as seen on dpreview serve their purpose but in the real world, our modern equipment is 99% overkill.

Obsession with sharpness is seriously out of fashion in modern photographer. Focusing on pixels and sharpness is like being the autistic kid obsessed with obtuse facts instead of the big picture.

[Kasakato]

And? A $100 prime beats your f2.8 L glass in focal length...

Equipment reviews as seen on dpreview serve their purpose but in the real world, our modern equipment is 99% overkill.

Obsession with sharpness is seriously out of fashion in modern photographer. Focusing on pixels and sharpness is like being the autistic kid obsessed with obtuse facts instead of the big picture.

Whats your point? You cant simply compare the focal length of a $100 50mm prime vs $1200 17-55mm f/2.8 (I shoot Nikon )

Sharpness is one component that makes up a lens. Theres also colour, speed, CA, build quality, distortion, etc that make a $100 lens differ from a $1200 lens. An excellent photographer can take excellent pictures with either lens, however the $1200 lens will take better looking pictures.

[jackwest]

And an Aston Martin is better than my BMW, but that doesn't make my car bad in any real sense. The point is these kind of focus on glass is misleading to beginners who think they are going to get ****** pictures unless they dish out $1000s on their gear.

[Kasakato]

And an Aston Martin is better than my BMW, but that doesn't make my car bad in any real sense. The point is these kind of focus on glass is misleading to beginners who think they are going to get ****** pictures unless they dish out $1000s on their gear.

If thats the message this thread projected, it wasn't intended. Most people will be happy with a kit lens and an all around lens. However, some people (see: us) notice little things in pictures others do not. We strive to remove these "little things" and produce the best image possible. Its all relative, some prefer an all around lens, others do not. That being said, expensive gear does not guarantee excellent pictures. It must also be coupled with an excellent photographer.

[Dr_luv]

An "all round" lens will definitely include some some trade offs as compared to having a specialized lens. Having said that, I tried a friends SAL16-105mm and it was really good. Pretty wide and has a good reach. There was some distortion on the wide end but nothing that some Photoshop can't take care of. As far as I know, the 15-105mm comes only as a kit lens and is not sold in Canada.

It is just slightly cheaper than the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm causing a dilemma.....

[Stock R]

I always bring my 10.5-300mm f/2.8 IF VR ED.

You had me there for a second!

[KorruptioN]

As far as I know, the 16-105mm comes only as a kit lens and is not sold in Canada.

Who told you that?

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/sto...&itemID=225928

I think I like the CZ16-80 a bit better.

[N_Raged]

I always bring my 10.5-300mm f/2.8 IF VR ED.

That's the old model. There's a new AF-S version out.

[Kasakato]

That's the old model. There's a new AF-S version out.

Gotta sell my old one then, it was a bit slow going from infinity to 0.25'. I guess the new one is ~$300 or so?