Your walkaround lens...

[flosseR]

Ok I am looking for opinions on walk around lenses. This means the type of lens that you have mostly on your camera and is the most versatile.
Since I cannot afford a Nikon 17-50mm 2.8 lens, I was looking at the Tamron version of this lens. I have the kit lens (18-105mm) but I find myself rarely shooting at 105mm and for that my sigma is better. I could happily live with up to 50mm only.

What are you using and what is the price/performance ration on those lenses?
NOTE: I have a Nikon cam.

[CATinHAWAII]

Ok I am looking for opinions on walk around lenses. This means the type of lens that you have mostly on your camera and is the most versatile.
Since I cannot afford a Nikon 17-50mm 2.8 lens, I was looking at the Tamron version of this lens. I have the kit lens (18-105mm) but I find myself rarely shooting at 105mm and for that my sigma is better. I could happily live with up to 50mm only.

What are you using and what is the price/performance ration on those lenses?
NOTE: I have a Nikon cam.

well.. im a canon-ite... but i just love my 1o-22,,, get a lot of interesting shots that way....:)

[compuwar]

I have the kit lens (18-105mm) but I find myself rarely shooting at 105mm and for that my sigma is better. I could happily live with up to 50mm only.

What are you using and what is the price/performance ration on those lenses?
NOTE: I have a Nikon cam.

What exactly about the kit lens that you have is it that you don't like? It's difficult to give advice when you've got something in the focal length you're looking at, but you don't say what it is that your pictures are missing.

well.. im a canon-ite... but i just love my 1o-22,,, get a lot of interesting shots that way....:)

I can't imagine being limited to 10-20mm, while I shot my 10-20mm a lot when I first got it, now that the honeymoon is over I find it's useful for certain shots and stays in the bag more and more, even for city/landscapes if I can possibly get away with shooting multiple shots with a slightly longer lens for more detail.

[mattyb240]

Tamron 17-50 2.8, great build quality and tack sharp.

[teleromeo]

I use the Nikon 18-200 VR for everyday use.

[flosseR]

Hi, the Kit lens has a max aperture of 3.5 and i find it's not THAT sharp . I heard good things about the tamron but also about any other f2.8 lenses and generally speaking they all seem to be much sharper than the nikon 18-105 (I have tried the nikon and the tamron versions of the 17-X). I just wondered what other people use or am i over eager about the f 2.8 etc.?

//F

[CATinHAWAII]

I can't imagine being limited to 10-20mm, while I shot my 10-20mm a lot when I first got it, now that the honeymoon is over I find it's useful for certain shots and stays in the bag more and more, even for city/landscapes if I can possibly get away with shooting multiple shots with a slightly longer lens for more detail.

true,, i do use the 24-70 alot.. but i try to go out and get *interesting* shots...
and dont always succeed,,, but i DO have fun...

i wouldnt limit myself on trips or anything... just around the town...;)

[compuwar]

Hi, the Kit lens has a max aperture of 3.5 and i find it's not THAT sharp . I heard good things about the tamron but also about any other f2.8 lenses and generally speaking they all seem to be much sharper than the nikon 18-105 (I have tried the nikon and the tamron versions of the 17-X). I just wondered what other people use or am i over eager about the f 2.8 etc.?

//F

Well, before you go changing, I'd recommend that you try to figure out *why* your images aren't sharp- it may be that you're hitting the limitations of the lens, or it may be your technique, or that you need to bring some support with you. Generally, I wouldn't expect 2/3rds of a stop to help immensely, but if you're always shooting wide open then I'd probably pay more attention to MTF charts than anything else when comparing lenses.

[mcorf]

Nikon 18-200 VR for everyday, Nikon 35mm-1.8 for indoors/low lighting shots.

[Styxie]

Canon 28-105 USM (fast and silent focussing), I'm sure Nikon makes an equivalent lens.

[PimpDaddy]

Right now I'm just using my 30mm 1.4 :)

[jessica.]

Well, before you go changing, I'd recommend that you try to figure out *why* your images aren't sharp- it may be that you're hitting the limitations of the lens, or it may be your technique, or that you need to bring some support with you. Generally, I wouldn't expect 2/3rds of a stop to help immensely, but if you're always shooting wide open then I'd probably pay more attention to MTF charts than anything else when comparing lenses.

Seriously? I'm baffled why you're pushing him towards the kit lens. It's it nearly common knowledge that the kit lens is pretty much a throw away lens? I do get what you're telling him to do but it seems as though he's pretty much set on tossing it.

If I had money to burn and I could do it with a straight face I'd buy the Nikon 24-70. Much of my shots end up around there right now anyway. I'll eventually just buy the Sigma version of that lens, which is nearly identical in every way that is important to me.

Right now I have the short-lived once revered 24-120 VR (Nikon). I think people loved it long enough to put it in their shopping carts and hit BUY. It didn't last long. I know the sweet spots of the lens, but generally speaking the lens is no longer suiting my needs.

I'd love an improved 18-200, which I would use on vacation so I could free up some bag space, but generally it's going to be a 10-20, 24-70, and 70-210 until that's replaced with a 70-200.

Everyday lens seems to hover in the 24-70 range.

[DAM-Photography]

17-55mm f/2.8 Nikon

[joro]

Canon 24-70mm L 2.8 :cool:

[Patriks7]

Canon 28-105 USM (fast and silent focussing), I'm sure Nikon makes an equivalent lens.

That doesn't automatically that the Nikon will be as good as the Canon... :p

[Mousse]

I use the 24-105 f4L as my walk around.

Maybe it's just me, but using a consumer level lense (ie. 50 f1.8 or the kit lens) wide open gives me images that are barely usable. Stopped down 1 or 2 stops and they really shine. (My Sigma 12-24 isn't usable until f8 or f16.:eek:) IMO, it's worth the extra moolah for a pro level glass. If it were me, I'd save up for the Nikon.

[canonguy]

I love my 24-105L, I work with it daily. If you are looking for more wide angle capability, bear in mind that you (likely) have an asp-c size sensor. The smaller sensor changes the effective focal distance... you will need an ultra wide angle (<24mm). In lenses you will always get what you pay for. That being said, unless you are a professional (or very discerning) you will probably not notice a huge difference between the consumer and professional level lenses (except the price)

The Tamron 17-50 is a good inexpensive alternative to the Nikon... I personally prefer the extended functionality of a macro-zoom.

Good luck

[nicros]

If you aren't getting the results you want from your current gear, maybe consider getting the 50mm f1.4

The lack of zoom will make you work a little harder on composition. The speed will give you plenty of creative flexibility. Best of all - you get pro level glass for a reasonable price.

In the end it comes down to the person behind the camera. If you are relying on gear to make your pictures better, you're looking in the wrong place. Working on technique will pay much higher dividends than spending the wad on some esoteric glass.

[canonguy]

If you aren't getting the results you want from your current gear, maybe consider getting the 50mm f1.4

The lack of zoom will make you work a little harder on composition. The speed will give you plenty of creative flexibility. Best of all - you get pro level glass for a reasonable price.

In the end it comes down to the person behind the camera. If you are relying on gear to make your pictures better, you're looking in the wrong place. Working on technique will pay much higher dividends than spending the wad on some esoteric glass.

While this is true, that the glass cannot make up for a lack in skill. It should also be said that no amount of skill can make up for chromatic aberrations, fringing or barrel distortion...all issues (to varying extents) of inexpensive lenses

[duncanapple]

Canon 35mm f/1.4L

This focal range handles pretty much everything I shoot. I do want to add a 70-200 2.8L or 4L in the future however. Would cover my long ranges, and if I ever got a full frame camera, it could become my portrait and telephoto lens, and the 35 would be my wide ange, full body, and general purpose lens still.

[GT41]

I have two lenses for walk-around purposes, and it will depend on the location.

I use my Tokina 12-24mm F/4 for Europe and my Canon 28-105 USM for North America.

The reason for this is that I find that the wide side of things is super nice for the narrow streets of Europe while the more open spaces of north america typically call for longer focal lengths.

That said I often take both (or more) and flip them when needed.

[jrm27]

If I had my way, it would be the 24-105L that I borrowed last year for a couple months.

[nutmac]

I have a Canon and although EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is far more flexible, I use EF 50mm f/1.4 USM most of the time for two reasons: (1) indoor flash free photography and (2) extra crispy details.

If I was a Nikon user, I probably would have AF-S 35mm f/1.8G or AF-S 50mm f/1.4G as a walkaround lens.

[ChrisBrightwell]

My standard walk-around combo is a Canon 50D w/ a 24-70 f/2.8 L attached.

If I'm going out at night or expect super-difficult lighting, I'll swap the 24-70 for my 50mm f/1.4 lens.

[88888888]

my AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR :apple:

[durhamj]

18-70mm kit lens.
just came back from a week in England, and for walking around I wanted something light weight (The body was heavy enough). The zoom range was perfect for close-in city scapes, parks, shopping areas, etc.....

[AlexH]

My Nikon 16-85 VR lens is usually my walk around lens, but it depends on where I'm walking... ;)

[dxp4acu]

I love my Nikon 18-105mm VR. Seems like the perfect compromise for affordibility/performance.

[compuwar]

Seriously? I'm baffled why you're pushing him towards the kit lens. It's it nearly common knowledge that the kit lens is pretty much a throw away lens? I do get what you're telling him to do but it seems as though he's pretty much set on tossing it.


Seriously, I'm not pushing him towards the kit lens, I'm pushing him towards diagnosing _what_ his results are a sign of-- It may be that it's the kit lens's resolution- but until he knows that for sure, it's worth exploring what the actual issue is. I've seen enough poor technique exhibited in modern DSLRs that I don't take for granted that anything's equipment anymore. Until you know what the problem is, swapping out components is sub-optimal.


If I had money to burn and I could do it with a straight face I'd buy the Nikon 24-70. Much of my shots end up around there right now anyway. I'll eventually just buy the Sigma version of that lens, which is nearly identical in every way that is important to me.


You haven't gotten it yet? Sheesh!



I'd love an improved 18-200, which I would use on vacation so I could free up some bag space, but generally it's going to be a 10-20, 24-70, and 70-210 until that's replaced with a 70-200.


You just need a bigger bag!

[nutmac]

my AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR :apple:
400mm is your walkaround lens? You live in the mountain or something?

[Edge100]

My walkaround used to be the 17-40 f/4L; on a 1.6x crop body, this was a perfect range. On my 1DmkII, however, I find it a bit too wide and not quite long enough.

These days I find that about 50% of the time I'll have a 50mm prime of some sort on my camera (1.8 or 1.4) and the rest of the time I split between the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4L.

[CK.]

400mm is your walkaround lens? You live in the mountain or something?

I'd rather inquire whether or not he's Yeti or the Hulk - that's one heavy lens.

[Ruahrc]

Seriously, I'm not pushing him towards the kit lens, I'm pushing him towards diagnosing _what_ his results are a sign of-- It may be that it's the kit lens's resolution- but until he knows that for sure, it's worth exploring what the actual issue is. I've seen enough poor technique exhibited in modern DSLRs that I don't take for granted that anything's equipment anymore. Until you know what the problem is, swapping out components is sub-optimal.

+1 on this. Truthfully the modern consumer lenses for all the crap they get are hardly distinguishable from the pro glass at 5.6, and probably indistinguishable from the pro glass at f8 or f11. My cousin's "throwaway" 18-55Nikkor has less distortion than my 18-200 does at many focal lengths. Furthermore, unless you're regularly making large prints of your pictures, the differences even wide open are going to be very, very hard to spot. Buying a 2.8 may not be the best investment if all you're gonna do is post up vacation shots on Flickr.

If all of the OP's shots are all at stopped down apertures then there is no point buying a better lens because it's user error not gear problems. Or maybe he's shooting wide open in the sunlight because he hasn't fully understood manipulating aperture and shutter speed and relating aperture to lens performance. I saw some photos from someone I knew which were from a D700 and I noticed he was shooting walkaround shots in broad daylight at ISO 4000 and 1/1000sec shutter speeds. This just shows an incomplete understanding of how to best use the tools available to you.

If the OP is finding that he is always shooting wide open in low light and needing more DOF, then maybe a 2.8 lens would be a good investment. Or, actually maybe they just need to try shooting at higher ISO, etc. and improve their PP before they try to fix their problems with faster glass.

But all too ofen I see or hear people getting a camera with a kit lens and then immediately thinking they need to upgrade to a pro 2.8 zoom to get good results. It happened to me too, but fortunately I held off on buying until I realized what I actually wanted to shoot and then spent the money on a used Nikkor 12-24/4 which I use for landscapes and it's awesome. I used to lust after the 70-200 but realized I would not use it much for what I like to shoot.

If the OP is just starting out, I'd also highly recommend figuring out what is wrong with the shots before assuming that lack of sharpness is just a crummy kit lens. Perhaps posting some examples (including 100% crops to determine sharpness) will help us see if the problem is gear related or not.

Ruahrc

[cutsman]

My walkaround lens on my D90 is either the 18-200VR or 24-70.

18-200VR for vacations or when I know I'm gonna be doing a lot of traveling by foot. 24-70 when I can put up with the extra weight and when I want that shallower DOF, extra sharpness/contrast.

With regards to the 18-55 kit lens. I never found sharpness to be an issue with this lens, despite it being "cheap" both in price and build quality. If the OP is noticing significant issues with sharpness, it is either user error or simply a defective copy of the lens or unrealistic expectations or some combination of those. I agree with the others... a few sample pics (with exif) showing the sharpness problems will help us to determine the cause.

[vga4life]

Canon 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D.

Looking forward to my E-P1 & 17mm pancake pre-order, though. The 5D is not a great vacation camera.

[Abstract]

Seriously? I'm baffled why you're pushing him towards the kit lens. It's it nearly common knowledge that the kit lens is pretty much a throw away lens? I do get what you're telling him to do but it seems as though he's pretty much set on tossing it.


Yes, it's a cheap lens, and it feels like it. However, it's sharp. The previous 18-55 mm kit lens was very sharp, and the newest version that was released a couple of years ago should be just as good, if not better. The main issues with the lens are probably (still) related to the lack of special coatings, the risk of seeing flares, aperture and low-light issues, etc.

I'd agree with compuwar that if the OP is having trouble with sharpness, then perhaps he should find out why. I wonder if the OP occasionally gets sharp photos with the kit lens? :confused: If he does, then I doubt it's the lens. A lens that isn't sharp would never be able to take an occasional sharp photo.


Anyway, depending on where I'm walking (outdoors, indoors, tight spaces, etc), I'd either walk around with my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, or my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. :) The Sigma is OK, but I wonder whether the newer Sigma 24-70 mm HSM version is a lot better at 70 mm? On my version, the lens is quite soft wide open at 70 mm. :o

[NeXTCube]

Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3320&navigator=6), Canon mount. (The Canon 17-55 IS USM didn't exist when I bought the Sigma.)

That said, I think it's well worth his time to try to figure out why his images aren't sharp. The Sigmas are famous for front focus issues that look like a lack of sharpness wide open...obviously he has a Nikkor, but there's no reason that couldn't be the problem...

[flosseR]

Ok, I think I have figured out what some issue with that lens is and I am taking it in for repair.

My Kit lens's VR mechanism isn't really functioning as it should.

I took two pictures with a tripod, same settings one with and one without VR. the one without VR is pin sharp, the one with VR looks sharp but when magnified it isn't really.

I then just looked through the viewfinder and hit the focus button and the VR SHOULD adjust once, shortly, but it keeps adjusting , there is this constant ever so slight movement. I borrowed another VR lens and sure enough, its one quick adjust then that's it. So final say: I will have to have it repaired then.

PS, the attached image was taken with the KIT lens at wide open at 1am without VR, on a tripod with ISO 160 and 1/5 sec.

[telecomm]

I took two pictures with a tripod, same settings one with and one without VR. the one without VR is pin sharp, the one with VR looks sharp but when magnified it isn't really.

You are not supposed to use VR when using a tripod (as your camera's instruction manual will confirm).

[toxic]

Canon 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D.

Looking forward to my E-P1 & 17mm pancake pre-order, though. The 5D is not a great vacation camera.

similar setup: 5D with Sigma 50, and hoping the E-P1 will be what the Sigma DP could have been...

[rouxeny]

My usual walk around lens is the Canon 17-40 f4L, usually with a polarizer on it.

Yes, I realize that the polarizer and f4 together don't help in lower light, but for day, it works.

I use a 5D.

[joelypolly]

28-300mm Canon L.... it is not very discreet or very light... or even reasonably priced but I do love mine very much.

You can read a review of it here (http://joelypolly.blogspot.com/search/label/28-300mm)

I am planning to get a Micro 4/3 camera with a 17mm pancake lens as a walkaround setup in future

[flosseR]

Agreed with the VR and the tripod, and I knew this. but as said the VR in my lens keeps moving while the same lens (18-105mm) from a friend moves once to stabilize and thats it.

I gave my lens already to repair and even the guy at the counter said that it is not supposed to do this. So let's see..

Still eyeballing that 2.8 lens though :)

[nbnbcar]

Ok I am looking for opinions on walk around

[Kronie]

10-22 or 17-55.....both Canon's

[compuwar]

my AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR :apple:

My "walk around" is usually the AF-S II version, wish I had the VR one, as the MTFs are astounding.

[gkarris]

Olympus E-420 w/ 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Digital Zuiko (kit lens from the E-500) equivalent is 28-90.

I am planning to get a Micro 4/3 camera with a 17mm pancake lens as a walkaround setup in future

Olympus PEN? ;)

[iTiki]

Nikon 16-85 VR works for me.:D

[needlnerdz]

Tokina 12-24mm is always attached to my nikon d200 - as I'm a huge sucker for wide angle photography, nevertheless I always carry a 50mm/1.8f in the camera bag as you never know how late you will stay out shooting. Lately I've been a lazy bum and after picking up a Panasonic FX37 [which has a 25mm wide angle lens!] - it's what sits in my pocket all day ready to capture the moment, while the nikon begins to get lonely...

[cutsman]

From my experience, VR behaves differently in different lenses. I haven't used the 18-55 VR, but I do have the 105VR and an 18-200VR and the VR movement while it's stabilizing is different when looking through the view finder. Don't visually compare the VR reaction between different lenses... compare it with another 18-55VR to see if yours is really faulty. Better yet, take some handheld low light shots where your shutter speed is just a couple stops short of being handholdable. Compare the results with VR on and VR off.

And it's been said already, but if you used VR on a tripod, it is normal for the shots to be even softer/blurrier than the same shot with VR off. When mounting on a tripod, turn the VR off.

[MrMojoRising]

My 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX Nikkor lens makes a great walkaround lens for my lightweight D40. Before that I used the 18-55mm kit lens and had no complaints.

[sangosimo]

I walk around with a 500mm f8 and a 50mm f1.8

[luminosity]

Nikon 17-55 2.8 for me (when I have my D300 with me and working, that is).

[SayCheese]

Depends on where I am walking around. It is usually the 70-200 2.8 IS L. However I sometimes use the 17-40 L.

[Westside guy]

Often I'm walking around with the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-f/4.5 on my D700; but sometimes I feel like keeping the 70-180 Micro-Nikkor on there gives me more flexibility - however that's not a "light kit" by any stretch of the imagination.

Sometimes I leave the 24-85 at home and just carry the 18-35 in addition to the 70-180, with the longer lens on the camera most of the time. And a tripod on my shoulder, of course.

[AFABS]

tamron 17-50

[yaroldb]

I'm an olympus guy, my walk around is the Oly 14-54 f/2.8-3.5. Very sharp and splash & dust proof.

[David G.]

24-70 f/2.8L, I love it!

[peapody]

Tokina 12-24mm is always attached to my nikon d200 - as I'm a huge sucker for wide angle photography, nevertheless I always carry a 50mm/1.8f in the camera bag as you never know how late you will stay out shooting.


x2

I just got the Tokina and I can see myself using it alot as a walk around. It's got a good range even as a wide angle.

Other than that I carry my p6000 everywhere. Has great color saturation and I love that body.

[jimsowden]

Nikon 18-200 VR for everyday, Nikon 35mm-1.8 for indoors/low lighting shots.
Exact same. Good taste my man.

[peskaa]

16-35 f/2.8L II USM is my everyday lens, although the 50 f/1.2L USM does end up making quite a few appearances.

The rest of my gear generally stays at home until I'm on a shoot.

[JFreak]

Truthfully the modern consumer lenses for all the crap they get are hardly distinguishable from the pro glass at 5.6, and probably indistinguishable from the pro glass at f8 or f11.

Yep.

Unfortunately, once you go over about f/10 digital image sensors lose sharpness due to diffraction. So there's not much room to operate, if you have slow glass. It is not much if you only have f/5.6 --> f/8 to choose from.

It was easier with film, just set the objective to f/16 and the whole landscape was perfectly sharp ;) with digital, the image only gets softer beyond f/10 or so...

[compuwar]

Yep.

Unfortunately, once you go over about f/10 digital image sensors lose sharpness due to diffraction. So there's not much room to operate, if you have slow glass. It is not much if you only have f/5.6 --> f/8 to choose from.


Actually, diffraction sets in about f/11 on very dense sensors like the Nikon D2x, so most folks are good to go at f/11.

There's a calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm about half-way down the page.

[JFreak]

Actually, diffraction sets in about f/11 on very dense sensors like the Nikon D2x, so most folks are good to go at f/11.

There's a calculator at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm about half-way down the page.

My point exactly. For example, a Canon 50D that has about 15MP sensor, gives f/7.6 for diffraction limited aperture according to the calculator from the page you linked. And a slightly older Canon 40D that has about 10MP sensor, gives f/9.3 for diffraction limited aperture. This tends to creep down as time goes by and marketing departments succeed in selling us the "more megapixels is infinitely better" lie.

Sure, more detail is more detail, but we do have to "be mindful" about diffraction. There's no way I would shoot narrower than f/8 with these new models.

[Sharewaredemon]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2604879145_e0da2fd2c6.jpg

[NintendoChick]

Lens time on my camera is usually split pretty evenly between the kit lens (18-55mm) and My 100mm f/2.8 E series lens. Kind of extreme, but yeah. :D

[Ruahrc]

My point exactly. For example, a Canon 50D that has about 15MP sensor, gives f/7.6 for diffraction limited aperture according to the calculator from the page you linked. And a slightly older Canon 40D that has about 10MP sensor, gives f/9.3 for diffraction limited aperture. This tends to creep down as time goes by and marketing departments succeed in selling us the "more megapixels is infinitely better" lie.

Sure, more detail is more detail, but we do have to "be mindful" about diffraction. There's no way I would shoot narrower than f/8 with these new models.

Although you do have to remember the increase in resolution will help offset the loss in sharpness due to diffraction. Therefore you're probably getting about the same detail from a 10MP camera shot at f/11 vs. a 14MP camera shot at f/16.

On my D80 I don't really notice an extreme degree of diffraction softness until I am above f20. I do lose a little from f11 to f16 but it's not very noticeable and would only show up clearly on very large prints. It is silly to limit your aperture choices to f8 or f11 because most of the time the increased DoF is more desirable than a slight loss of sharpness. For example stopping down may be the difference between getting that flower in the foreground in focus, or having it left blurry and ruining the shot, even though the rest of the picture is "sharp".

The circle-of-confusion calculations are somewhat arbitrary because the CoC for a 16x20 print being viewed at 10ft is going to be different than for an 8x10 print viewed at 6 inches, vs a 4x6 print viewed at 1ft, etc.

Ruahrc