What's your 'walkabout' lens and why?

fingerz

fingerz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,100
Edit My Images
No
DJW's thread about lenses for different budgets was the inspiration for this, really. So cheers DJW :)

However, instead of listing nine lenses, I only want to know one - your main walkabout lens, since this is the main lens beginners/people will want to spend money on. Plus I want a slightly more detailed description of why you went for it and whether you'd do the same again if you had to buy a new all-purpose lens tomorrow. If you have more than one walkabout lens then pick your favourite (the one you couldn't live without).

I'll start. Mine is the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC. I chose it because I wanted a replacement for the Canon kit lens on a budget. My main concerns were that I wanted something fast (f/2.8 throughout) and it had to go down into the teens at the wide end. Apart from that the only considerations were optical quality and price.

Overall I'm quite happy with it but I do tend to find that it doesn't auto-focus as well as I'd like at 18mm. I usually find myself focusing at 50mm (where the AF seems fine) and then pulling back to 18mm while keeping the focus locked. Apart from that the only bad thing I can say is that it's not as sharp as the 17-40L, but that's to be expected for the price.

If I was buying again, I might spend a bit more time considering whether I'd be prepared to sacrifice the wide maximum aperture for the proven optical quality and better AF of the 17-40L, albeit at a higher price. The 16-35 F2.8L is far too expensive for the extra speed so I'd either have to make do with a slower lens or go into the 24-70mm range, where there are quite a few more choices but the range isn't as useful on 1.6x crop cameras.

So that's mine. Over to you.

Edit: just to add, my ideal (but reasonably realistic) walkabout lens would be 18-80mm, f/2.8 throughout the zoom, have image stabilisation and all the usual nice stuff (good optical quality from about f/4 upwards, USM with FTM focus, decent build quality, non-moving front end, etc)
 
The lens that stays on the camera most of the time is the basic Canon f1.8 50mm prime.

It forces you to move yourself rather than the zoom and at 50mm that can be hard work but the results are so much better than any other lens I have that the pain is worth it.

A side effect of that is that it makes me think about the composition of the shot a lot more rather than relying on the zoom to help me out.

If I had the money I think a 17-40L would be my lens of choice but maybe just another L level prime around 28mm would be better.
 
Well I can see all the people's points of view, it depends what you are shooting and to narrow it down to just one lens is always going to be a compromise. One of the main reasons of buying DSLR is the versatility that different lenses add to your shooting and unless you are a pro making money from one type of photography, then the majority of us would and do require more than one lens. The people who like motor sport or wildlife are going to want long zooms or primes, the people that like landscapes are going to want wide lenses.

But if I was just starting out and budget was limited then as I am a Canon man, the 17-40L would be my choice as it lives on my camera and landscapes seems to give me the most pleasure. On saying that the 24-105mm L IS USM would probably attract more people just for its range and at a push that would probably be a better lens as it covers a bigger range despite not being as wide.
 
The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lives on my camera. There are times when the wide end is not wide enough - but not many.
The main plus is I trust it. If it ever returns a poor result I can usually trace it back to me. It is sharp enough and fast enough for most things I need. Can't say there is any focal length where it is not as good. I guess it is softer wide open but not enough to make me think twice about using it at 2.8
 
RobertP said:
The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lives on my camera. There are times when the wide end is not wide enough - but not many.
The main plus is I trust it. If it ever returns a poor result I can usually trace it back to me. It is sharp enough and fast enough for most things I need. Can't say there is any focal length where it is not as good. I guess it is softer wide open but not enough to make me think twice about using it at 2.8
Click to expand...

Sums that lens up perfectly!!

It was the first lens I bought when I first worked with my 10D and I still have it in my kit now. Despite having a reasonable selection of L glass I would not hesitate to use the Tamron if the situation called for fast glass. The quality it produces is far beyound what its price would suggest it would be capable of. :smilenod:
 
well,
i'm afraid i can only afford ' slow ' glass

so the coke bottle bottom does for the time being

MyPix
 
And I can only afford ' slow ' L glass

So that will have to do for the time being too

Steve
 
Canon 17-85 IS USM. The IS makes the lens big and heavy but it also saves the day hand holding in lower light. Looks and feels good on the camera. If I had spare cash I'd stick to the middle of the range and plump for the faster 24-70 f/2.8 L :)
 
If that 17-85mm IS was f/2.8 throughout it'd be pretty much ideal, except that it would weigh even more than it does already.

But when you show people a nice photo you took, they don't tend to ask how much the camera weighed when you took it, so who cares.
 
18 - 70 (Nikon gear - always :smilenod: ) being new to digital (relatively) it appears a good all rounder and plenty flexible enough for most situations ... in general terms. :thumb: Has to be backed up with other stuff though for specifics. :Ponders:

And primarily used as it was the kit lens on the D70s ... but as that is now up for sale and the lens goes with it :sadcry: I suppose I might have to turn my eye on the new 18 - 200VR ? :Ponders:

Although it seems to have excellent first press I am not sure this will be my first choice replacement 'everyday' lens 'cos of size/weight/quality etc., but who knows stranger things and all that ! :smilenod:
 
Canon 50mm f1.8. I think I'm much more likely to get the shot with that lens than the kit, it's fast to focus, sharp as a pin etc.

That said. now I own the 10-20 I will be keeping it on the camera for a while at least. The only drawback is it's weight and the 'gawk' factor.
 
Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX SWM - fantastic piece of glass and worth every penny despite the weight. Really sharp, low distortion and super fast focusing. I bought mine from a UK dealer to ensure full UK warranty - I could have saved around £200 by buying it from DigitalRev etc but I wanted to visually inspect the lens before parting with my cash.

I very closely considered the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 which was around the same price but felt the extra 20mm was a better tradeoff for slightly inferior optical quality (according to various reviews I've seen on teh web), and I don't regret my choice in the slightest.

I could have gone for the equivalent Sigma and saved an absolute fortune but it would always be in the back of my mind that I should have spent the extra on the Nikon - just like I did with the Sigma 70-200 - I wish I had spent the extra but I couldn't justify the money at the time.

My other justification is that this piece of glass will long outlive my D70
 
i got the Tamron 28-75sillylongname and its great, but i havent had a chance to really USE it yet, im looking forward to that day, the APO70/300 used to stay on whenever i could use it, and now i have a Sigma 18-50 incoming for wide end shots, hopefully it wont be a dud!
 
Till about 3 weeks ago the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime due to points others make. Then I bought a 10-20 Sigma which has been on the last 3 weeks.
Money permitting I would choose the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX SWM as mentioned above, or possibly the 28-80 equivalent.
 
Up to now its been the 18-55 kit lens. the next lens up I own is the 75-300 and there's a nasty gap.

I was looking at the Canon EF 28-135 IS but have finally decided on the Tamron AF 28-200mm Super Zoom f3.8-5.6 Aspherical (IF) Macro 1:4 (another sillyish long name)

I can get it from Fotosense for £159 and with my first paid gig coming up I know I am going to need all of that range for the subject matter.

I'm leaning towards outdoor daylight event photography so I think it will do the job well.
 
The lens on the camera mainly lately has been the 100-400. Not least though because of practical considerations, if I put one of the others on there's no room for the 100-400 in the bag :(

Having said that I'll use it for sports, wildlife and landscapes so being the lazy sod I am I'm not too bothered.
 
Well, I only have two lenses. The 50mm is on most of the time - every one of my favourite pictures i've taken, was taken on it. I wish I had a wider prime the same quality, say 35 or 50mm equivalent. I also wish Canon would make an 18-135mm USM for £250 - all these 24mm> and 28mm> lenses aren't wide enough for my liking.

Matt
 
The lens I use primarily is my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 as like others here mainly take motorsports shots.

But when I am just wandering around looking for interesting things to take pictures of I would probably use my Sigma 12-24
 
The lens that is on my camera for the majority of time is the Canon EF 17-85 IS USM

The range is perfect for the majority of pictures, and I only take it off if I am doing wildlife or portraits. It is a heavy lens and the barrel distortion (some call it perspective) at 17mm is pretty pronounced, but for the most part it is a great, sharp lens, and the IS means I can take far more pictures handheld than before.
 
my 17-40 L has spent most time on my camera, but the ef-s 60 is catching up at a rate of knotts!

can't remember the last time i used the 75-300 is :eek2:
 
My walkabout lens are

On my Canon 24-70L 2.8
On my Nikon 17-55 2.8

More than happy with both of them.
 
Think the kit lens just grabs it due to its diversity, wish it was quicker in low light though;)

When its family and friend events probably have to say 50mm f1.8, when out and about would mostly be the kit lens (18-55mm f3.5-5.6).

Desperately looking to upgrade to maybe a 24-70mm f2.8 L or 24-105mm f4 L IS but just can't make the choice.
 
RobertP said:
The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lives on my camera. There are times when the wide end is not wide enough - but not many.
The main plus is I trust it. If it ever returns a poor result I can usually trace it back to me. It is sharp enough and fast enough for most things I need. Can't say there is any focal length where it is not as good. I guess it is softer wide open but not enough to make me think twice about using it at 2.8
Click to expand...
Steve said:
Sums that lens up perfectly!!

It was the first lens I bought when I first worked with my 10D and I still have it in my kit now. Despite having a reasonable selection of L glass I would not hesitate to use the Tamron if the situation called for fast glass. The quality it produces is far beyound what its price would suggest it would be capable of.
Click to expand...
I couldn't say it better myself... so I won't bother! :grinshake

...I will say that I'm seriously considering changing thing's around in the future as the Canon 24-105 f/4 looks very nice indeed, but before that, something wider needs to be added and the Sigma changed for something longer...

...does it ever end!!! :noshake::banghead:
 
17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor at the moment, soon to be replaced (I hope) by the 17-55 f/2.8.

Assuming I'm only carrying one body.

Which I never do.

So really it's the 17-35 and an 80-200 f/2.8...
 
Another vote for the 17-40L here. The 17-85 EF-S is also a cracker and the IS makes it a great general purpose lens being that bit longer, but the 17-40L is a tad crisper and has better colour rendition.

The 50mm 1.4 is also a firm favourite althogh FOV is often a problem on a crop sensor,
 
Mine is a Canon 28-105mm USM F/3.5-4.5

But usually have the kit lens (18-55) and my 75-300 on the bag.
 
Mine is still the kit lens (Canon 18-55mm). Although lately I've been considering other options as the barrel distortion and converging verticals problem have become more apparent! I liked the days when I didn't notice these things!
 
The 28-80 Nikon kit lens for me - it does what I need it to do :)
 
My 300D has a very close relationship with a Tamron 28-300 XR3i Ghia (some random letters:)) . Not the fastest bestest lens but it gets the vast majority of outside shots at a level of quality that my budget is happy with .
 
Nikkor 18-70 kit lens for me. Glass isn't that quick, but the focussing is and it's sharper than any other lens I have (unfortunately), apart from my 50mm f/1.8...
 
I would probably say the Canon 24-70L was my walk around lens. It offers the best compromise between wide angle and telephoto; it’s very sharp and has a constant 2.8 aperture. It is heavy but you soon get used to the weight :)
 
SDK^ said:
I would probably say the Canon 24-70L was my walk around lens. It offers the best compromise between wide angle and telephoto; it’s very sharp and has a constant 2.8 aperture. It is heavy but you soon get used to the weight :)
Click to expand...

Sheesh... 900 quid at Warehouse Express! Is it weatherproof?
 
Yup
 
CT said:
Sheesh... 900 quid at Warehouse Express! Is it weatherproof?
Click to expand...
Of course it is :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top