This was shot with the D750 and the 28-300 lens. f5.6 ISO 200 1/320 sec. No lens distortion correction.
Link to the full size file: http://www.precisiongem.com/Downloads/BeaverDam.jpg
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Walkaround lens for a D750
- Thread starter dimme
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This was shot with the D750 and the 28-300 lens. f5.6 ISO 200 1/320 sec. No lens distortion correction.
Link to the full size file: http://www.precisiongem.com/Downloads/BeaverDam.jpg
Precision Gem, you didn't state ANY facts about your Oly rig but rather elected to make a very directed comment.
Please share a link to that article. I think it would be great if we could all enjoy it. Thanks for sharing the image and I trust you stand by it even when put under the "+" for magnification. I am sure we will have some differences of opinion as well on some facets of that image (not subject matter but technical).
Please share a link to that article. I think it would be great if we could all enjoy it. Thanks for sharing the image and I trust you stand by it even when put under the "+" for magnification. I am sure we will have some differences of opinion as well on some facets of that image (not subject matter but technical).
The FACTS about the Olympus was that with a broader range in lens, the weight of the camera, lens, bag is a fraction of what the Nikon weigh. For the Nikon I have lenses from 14mm to 300 including the 200mm Nikon macro. For the Olympus I have 14mm to 600mm (equivalent) and a 120mm Macro. Total weight is less than ¼ of the Nikon.
As far as the image goes, I'm sure under + magnification, a better 28mm lens would be somewhat sharper. However, for normal viewing on a monitor, webpage or 8x10 print, I don't think you would see any difference, just like you won't see any difference with the 750 and Oly micro 4/3 system.
The topic of the thread was a "walking around lens". If I needed razor sharp images, then I would use my 4x5 view camera, which I don't consider to be a walking around camera.
As far as the image goes, I'm sure under + magnification, a better 28mm lens would be somewhat sharper. However, for normal viewing on a monitor, webpage or 8x10 print, I don't think you would see any difference, just like you won't see any difference with the 750 and Oly micro 4/3 system.
The topic of the thread was a "walking around lens". If I needed razor sharp images, then I would use my 4x5 view camera, which I don't consider to be a walking around camera.
I also use this lens on my D7000. I like it a lot, and would buy it again in a minute.
PG, my context of discussion was very much focused upon the original post. If you check the post you will see exactly how my posts were oriented.
Btw, do you have that link to that article you quoted? I would like to read it and perhaps others too.
On a personal note, I have nothing bad to say about the Oly line up other than I am admittedly not a fan of the sensor size. As far as a nice line up and some features (again just personal opinion), Oly is one of the more complete camera systems around. While I may like some of the Fuji X line up for smaller cameras, the Oly overall has it beat as a systems camera capable of doing more than well for what it is when shooting sports (though the Fuji X-T2 has made an arguement for the Fuji). I'm trying to recall but somewhere recently there was a mention that Olympus will be dropping production of its 4/3 lenses in favour of the m4/3 lenses. If you like, I'll try to find that mention for you. I'm just hoping I am remembering that piece of info correctly.
Last - for me, I would never purchase the 28-200 or 28-300 lenses as it is contrary to my take on how far I would compromise. I do however find that many may be attracted to the fact of its range (and surprisingly small size for such a zoom ratio). You also mention monitor, webpage and 8x10prints. We can concur if that is all one wants then sure, why not. I don't work that way. I often have post work done that may include some crop, perhaps another image from a section of the image etc. I like the flexibility that more resolution provides as well as the appearance of greater "tonality."
I keep thinking back to film days. I had some fine lenses back then for 35mm (Nikon and 3rd party Nikon mount). All was great until I started using Kodak's Technical Pan film with soft developer. Some of my fav lenses just were not sharp enough and it showed with this extremely low grain film. It really required a high resolving lens to undo that "overall" softness as seen by some of my other lenses. This is where using more flat field lenses came in nicely (mostly macro/micro lenses).
I think your comment about "why don't you just use your iPhone" is what made everything else you said sound condescending. Before that point, I read your comments and just thought, "I wonder if he realizes that he's not answering the question, but just sharing an opinion that's related to the question."
Then I read your iPhone comment and my thoughts were less charitable.
Reading your comments again, but willingly omitting the iPhone comment and I see your point. You're expressing an opinion, one that most people would probably just shrug at if it wasn't what they were inquiring about, but one stray comment colored everything else before and after it.
Smirking, I appreciate you simply saying what is on your mind and your take on the conversation (though less kind on my words offered. I will say that my comment was after some comments that seemed to be rationalizing certain choices and a touch contrary to the original post. If one want's light, and always to have a camera around then the iphone is then ideal.
Please understand, I just don't generate posts of that sort without it being in response to another post and often one that is either pointed or in some respects contrary.
What prompted my reference to ease of use was exactly in response to the following part of a comment -
"Well the worst camera in the world is one that doesn't get taken with you as it is too heavy to carry around.
Yes image quality can be only ONE aspect of consideration on the ideal compromise for a given situation, not everyone has the same level of fitness or mobility and guess what, at 11,000ft altitude (you DID pick up on that in Monikakata's post right?), neither would you."
Here's the link to the review I quoted from: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm
As far as the film days and noticing sharpness due to film type, I can not comment. Most of my film days were using a RB67 pro S 2-¼ x 2-¾" or a 4x5 view camera. I really only use 35mm for snap shots. I used to back pack those cameras, so now that I am much older and the spring in the step is gone, the compactness of the Olympus is certainly appreciated. And to be clear, I have the m4/3 OM-D E-M1. When I bought it, I was concerned about the small sensor, especially coming from medium and large format film most of my life, however I was very surprised at how well the small sensor performs. If you think about it, todays latest smart phones take shocking good images when the think of the size of the sensors. Make a 4x5 print from your phone, and you could pass it off as coming from your FX sensor Nikon.
As far as the film days and noticing sharpness due to film type, I can not comment. Most of my film days were using a RB67 pro S 2-¼ x 2-¾" or a 4x5 view camera. I really only use 35mm for snap shots. I used to back pack those cameras, so now that I am much older and the spring in the step is gone, the compactness of the Olympus is certainly appreciated. And to be clear, I have the m4/3 OM-D E-M1. When I bought it, I was concerned about the small sensor, especially coming from medium and large format film most of my life, however I was very surprised at how well the small sensor performs. If you think about it, todays latest smart phones take shocking good images when the think of the size of the sensors. Make a 4x5 print from your phone, and you could pass it off as coming from your FX sensor Nikon.
I would like to hear your thoughts on my next gear purchase. I have a D7000, I bought it together with the 16-85mm Nikon (DX) lens, which I replaced a year later with the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G, and I was happy with the combo for the most of the time. I bought the 10-24mm Nikon (DX) lens to take care of the wide end later. I also have the SB700 flashgun. For a pocketable camera, I currently have the Sony RX100mk3.
I have been looking at the Sony A7 cameras ever since they launched, the A7II looks sweet, but obviously I'm not too thrilled about switching systems. And the most appealing aspect of the Sony (smaller bulk) would diminish as soon as I mount a fast zoom lens on it. So I would have to use primes with it - I imagine I could get by with one "standard" and one wide prime for the start.
The other, more cost-effective option, is to upgrade the D7000 to D750. I might not need a wider lens than my current 24-70, but I would definitely need a "walkaround" lens, as the 24-70 is simply too heavy. I don't necessarily need a 300mm zoom, I would trade the reach for lower weight/bulk. Primes might be an option too.
What would you suggest ?
Last edited:
For me I ended up getting a Nikon 24 to 120 as my "walk around lens" to use with my D750. I too thought about going mirrorless to save weight but when I factored in the cost and all the lenses the weight difference was not worth giving up the versatility I have with all my nikon lenses.
You can't go wrong with a d750 unless you really need the things that a mirrorless camera does better than a DSLR. If it were me, I would keep the 24-70mm. I have the 24-120mm kit lens that it came with my d750 and while I find it to be a very reliable lens that outperforms its technical scores, I'm mostly using it between the 24-80mm range. It starts to get soft over 100mm. I'd prefer the wider aperture of the 24-70mm and better overall sharpness.
On the other hand, the 24-120mm is still a great lens for its focal range and it weighs almost 200g less than a 24-70mm so if you want less weight without sacrificing too much reach, a d750 plus the 24-120mm saves you about 150g. Mounted on a d750, the 24-120mm actually feels surprisingly light. Of all my lenses, that one just feels the most balanced when mounted on my d750.
When I was shopping for a lens in this category for my D800, I looked at the 24-120 f/4 and 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 extensively-to the point of renting each lens for a week and trying it.
Ultimately, I decided on the 24-85 for a couple of reasons. I bought mine used-it's the first generation VR version(I think a newer one has come out).
1. I did not see an appreciable image quality difference for hand-held walk-around photography between the two
2. The weight difference is NOT insignificant, with the 24-85 making for a lighter handling package.
3. As far as I'm concerned, the difference between a fixed f/4 zoom and a variable 3.5-4.5 is not worth splitting hairs over. VR makes up for some of the difference(provided that your subject isn't moving), and the fact that the D800(and I'd assume the D750 as well) can give better images at ISO 3200 than something like my D2X at 800 makes up for the rest.
4. Looking back over thousands of 35mm transparencies and negatives, I've only ever used lenses in the ~100mm range for macro photos, and I already have the superb 105mm 2.8D Micro lens. The area between 85mm and 135mm is more or less dead for me-I'd rather use a 135mm lens for portraits, for example. That's me, though, and certainly isn't true for everyone.
I discounted a lot of other available options that cover a wider zoom range because the ones I'm familiar with tend to start at 28mm. For me, 28mm and 35mm are only marginally useful focal lengths, while 24mm is VERY useful(to the point where I'd feel like I would either need to carry a 24mm prime or something else that covers that range). Having a "normal" zoom that goes to 24mm is a big deal to me. There again, that's me, and not necessarily true for everyone.
Ultimately, I decided on the 24-85 for a couple of reasons. I bought mine used-it's the first generation VR version(I think a newer one has come out).
1. I did not see an appreciable image quality difference for hand-held walk-around photography between the two
2. The weight difference is NOT insignificant, with the 24-85 making for a lighter handling package.
3. As far as I'm concerned, the difference between a fixed f/4 zoom and a variable 3.5-4.5 is not worth splitting hairs over. VR makes up for some of the difference(provided that your subject isn't moving), and the fact that the D800(and I'd assume the D750 as well) can give better images at ISO 3200 than something like my D2X at 800 makes up for the rest.
4. Looking back over thousands of 35mm transparencies and negatives, I've only ever used lenses in the ~100mm range for macro photos, and I already have the superb 105mm 2.8D Micro lens. The area between 85mm and 135mm is more or less dead for me-I'd rather use a 135mm lens for portraits, for example. That's me, though, and certainly isn't true for everyone.
I discounted a lot of other available options that cover a wider zoom range because the ones I'm familiar with tend to start at 28mm. For me, 28mm and 35mm are only marginally useful focal lengths, while 24mm is VERY useful(to the point where I'd feel like I would either need to carry a 24mm prime or something else that covers that range). Having a "normal" zoom that goes to 24mm is a big deal to me. There again, that's me, and not necessarily true for everyone.
I know that I'm responding to a nearly 6 month old post, but I can't help wonder how much this particular poster ever used Tech Pan.
Personally, while I DID use it occasionally(I still have some in a bulk loader) I found it unduly temperamental and frankly most of the time I didn't want to bother with it. Getting a continuous tone negative-much less one with the contrast and dynamic range of the more common photographic film-can be a real headache. Plus, ASA 25 is difficult to handhold unless you're content with shooting fast lenses wide open(spoiling resolution with spherical abberation), particularly if you eat up 1/2-3 stops with a filter to again bring some sanity into its rendition. You're pretty well stuck on a tripod if you want to get the most out of the film, and there are some types of photography where that's simply not possible.
EVERY photograph is a compromise in some way or another. Going back to the film days, when the light was favorable I chose to shoot Velvia(back when it was only Velvia and not Velvia 50) despite the fact that Provia and Kodachrome 25 had slightly better resolving power and Provia had(has) more dynamic range. Now, when the choice is Velvia 50, Velvia 100, or Provia 100 for a transparency film I pick Velvia 50 most of the time for the color rendition. Provia only comes out when I might need to photograph people, and Velvia 100 is for when I want fresh 4x5 transparency film without having to buy from Japan(even though I have some original Velvia stashed away).
Outside that, though, I make aesthetic and practical choices with film all the time. Sometimes I need the speed of Portra 400, for example, even though Portra 160 and Ektar 100 are both finer grained. Tri-X is like an old friend, and even though TMAX400 is both finer grained and theoretically has more resolving power, I much prefer the overall look of Tri-X. Heck, back when I was in high school, I use to push Tri-X to 3200. It looked terrible when scanned or printed as a regular photograph, but was fine in half tone in the school newspaper.
Good digital cameras easily out-resolve 35mm film, but if I want to shoot both film and digital it's a lot easier to toss my F100 in the bag with my D800 than to tote another system. I have medium format SLR systems in all three of the major sizes. I tend to gravitate toward 6x6 as a compromise in negative size and camera handling, but 645 is significantly lighter and also gives me 3 extra shots per roll. 6x7, shot correctly, can still beat a good DSLR but my 6x7 system(Mamiya RB67) weighs a TON. The 50mm f/4.5 I bought a few weeks ago weighs more than my Nikon 80-200 2.8D. It's only marginally hand-holdable.
I can hand-hold a 4x5 Speed Graphic, but much prefer working with it or my B&J Field Camera on a tripod. Even though the Graphic was designed to be hand-held and has several tools to facilitate both framing and focusing when doing that, it's really at home on a tripod. I can focus on the ground glass-something all but impossible hand-held. Also, adding in movements will make both the rangefinder and wire frame finder useless, and you really SHOULD be looking at the GG to see what's going on with them. The field camera I have makes no provision for hand hold, nor should it-it's only meant for GG focusing and of course has a lot more movements available than a press camera. Even though large format done right gives better technical image quality than any 35mm-based digital, it's VERY impractical for anything outside studio work or outdoor photography where you have the time to set it up right. There's also the fact that even though I HAVE a bunch of film holders, they are bulky and there's a practical limit to how many I can tote into the field with me. I rarely take more than 4 into the field, which means 8 exposures. I'm not about to sit down in the sun and have my sweaty hands ruin both exposed and unexposed film inside a changing bag to re-load the holders either. Quick loads/ready loads, when they were available, solved that problem but also killed sharpness as they had serious film flatness issues.
And, if we want to keep going with this, 8x10 offers even better image quality than 4x5-simple physics tells you that much. Everything about them is super sized(and heavy) compared to 4x5, though. Plus, film is 4x as expensive and a lot more difficult to handle. Processing-whether you do it yourself or have a lab do(good luck with the latter) it-is 4x as expensive.
My point in all my rambling is that you can stand on the mountain and preach that you consider mid-range zooms a waste, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I know full well that when I stick my preferred 24-85 on my D800, I'm giving up some image quality as compared to primes or high end zooms. Still, the little light weight lens is pretty darn good and it covers three of my most used FLs-24mm, 50mm, and 85mm. I can head out with the camera and a single lens, and I won't miss a shot while I'm digging through my bag for a different lens or changing lenses. In fact, I can forget the bag-I have enough pockets to haul a polarizer, a spare memory card or two, and a spare battery. If I WANT to take a bag, I can carry a small one and might drop in a fast normal(50mm 1.4, or maybe a 1.8 if I want to save weight) and/or an ultrawide prime or 135mm or so.
I'm a big fan of the late Galen Rowell's work, and if you study his equipment list you'll find that he carried things that were considered optically inferior to some of the alternatives. Still, he chose them for their size and weight. He was a big fan of the F4, but toward the end of his life mostly gave it up for the lighter F100(he flat out rejected the F5, and while I appreciate mine for what it is I can understand someone not wanting to carry that beast). He also kept an FG-one of Nikon's lowest end manual bodies, but also one of their lightest-as a back-up. He's the only pro I've known of to use an FG, but it certainly didn't stop him from making great photographs.
I carry a 35mm prime for walking around. Just imagine all the people satisfied with their cell phone cameras that don't zoom at all. In fact I'm more than happy with my phone all the time. I put that mindset into a quality camera and the results are even better.
My old setup was a Nikon D800e with a 35mm f/1.4, now it's a Sony a7rii with a Leica 35mm f/2.5 and a Voigtlander close-focus adapter.
My old setup was a Nikon D800e with a 35mm f/1.4, now it's a Sony a7rii with a Leica 35mm f/2.5 and a Voigtlander close-focus adapter.
Bunnspecial - yes, more often than not, I use Tech Pan with the camera on a tripod and treated it similar to using large format cameras. I found no particular problem with getting a reasonable grey scale within the neg given that a soft developer is used. In fact, there were companies that made developers that would give a full range neg. One worked at ASA 25 and another used ASA 12. I admit to trying Rodinal very diluted but that was pretty much a failure. Many of the images shot with Tech Pan gained an extra "depth" by doing a strong selenium toning. Recall, that a strong toning may almost look purplish on some papers and purple to the eye does not have a distinct depth to the colour.
So while you may wonder, I have worked with 35mm cameras, my first camera as a kid (other than the Kodak Instamatic) was a very inexpensive roll film camera that took a reasonable image (maybe Yashicamat level). As for your comment on large format, yep been there done that and that was not the purpose of my original comment on Tech Pan vs sharpness (specifically resolving power) of the lenses of those days.
So while you may wonder, I have worked with 35mm cameras, my first camera as a kid (other than the Kodak Instamatic) was a very inexpensive roll film camera that took a reasonable image (maybe Yashicamat level). As for your comment on large format, yep been there done that and that was not the purpose of my original comment on Tech Pan vs sharpness (specifically resolving power) of the lenses of those days.
So, with that, I'll get back around to the question-did/do you use Tech Pan for all of your photography?
If not, you're throwing away far more resolution than those of us who elect to use a mid-range zoom do.
Sometimes I'm content to work on a tripod, but honestly I'm happy those times to get out medium or large format. If I do stick my D800 on a tripod, I'll typically use a good prime(although so much money has been thrown at zooms in the past few years that many pro zooms are as good or better than the primes they replace). Not all of my photography works well with a tripod...in fact there's a reason why my main 4x5 camera is one designed to be used handheld(although I haven't used it hand held THAT much).
Going back to Tech Pan-at EI 12 or 25, even in full sun you're going to be at largeish apertures to get hand-holdable shutter speeds and throwing away a lot of resolution consequently.
It's not uncommon these days to find a modern lens design that's diffraction limited at f/5.6. With base ISOs sometimes now creeping up to 200 or higher, it can be difficult to keep the aperture that large in full sun unless you want to start stacking NDs on it(and that costs you some optical quality no matter how good they are).
So, there again, I will say that all of this standing on a pedestal about using "mid range zooms" just strikes me as quite a narrow minded view.
My walk around lens is usually the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.
If that is outside the budget, there is nothing wrong with the nifty fifty.
If that is outside the budget, there is nothing wrong with the nifty fifty.
I spent many years with the highly questionable 18-200mm VR, which was not near as bad as for a 10x zoom. Looking over my recent shots, I decided that need to go wider - and preferably lighter. Downgraded/upgraded my body (newer but less "pro") and got a 10-24 mm lens instead. Will see how it goes. It all depends on how you "walk around" 
Which lens/body did you go for?I spent many years with the highly questionable 18-200mm VR, which was not near as bad as for a 10x zoom. Looking over my recent shots, I decided that need to go wider - and preferably lighter. Downgraded/upgraded my body (newer but less "pro") and got a 10-24 mm lens instead. Will see how it goes. It all depends on how you "walk around"
The D5600 and Nikon’s 10-24 mm DX lens. I spent 5 hours in store trying out different gear, I was so exhausted by the end of it. (First world problems, I know). I was surprised how clumsy the more pro cameras felt compared to the large LCD and touch screen interface of the D5600. The absolute best IQ came from Sony a7 II, but it had some weird stuff going on that made me steer clear of it. Basically, UX is not their strength.
I generally keep a rather indifferent attitude towards gear, but this was my first camera purchase in 5 years so I’m oddly excited to see how it goes. Hopefully will return to Picture of the Day thread with some results
.
Before I decided to quit buying DX lenses, I debated long and hard about buying the older 12-24 f4 vs. the 10-24. Ultimately the 12-24 won out for cost reasons and knowing that the writing was on the wall for me with DX(aside from certain things like a nice little IR converted D80 ). Still, I've heard nothing but great things about the 10-24.
The nice thing about DX lenses is that you can get a relatively modestly priced lens like the 10-24 that's a manageable size. I absolutely love my 14-24 2.8-it's honestly one of the best lenses I've ever used-but it's a beast.
). Still, I've heard nothing but great things about the 10-24. The nice thing about DX lenses is that you can get a relatively modestly priced lens like the 10-24 that's a manageable size. I absolutely love my 14-24 2.8-it's honestly one of the best lenses I've ever used-but it's a beast.
Wow. Kind of a strange post to resurrect, but I'll bite.
The choice of a walk-around lens obviously hinges on what you like to shoot when walking around. If I could only pick one focal range/lens it would probably be a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. Or a 35mm/50mm f/1.4 prime. Depending on the light I was expecting to find and how important subject isolation was for my mood and what I was expecting to shoot.
I made the switch to Sony a few years ago (I think it's been a few years) and currently walk around with either the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom or 25mm Batis and 55mm Sony/Zeiss. Unless I am walking around somewhere where I know I will want a longer lens, and then I'm using the new 100-400.
The 100-400 is a stellar lens. @phrehdd it is actually remarkable throughout the zoom range even on the long end. I agree with you that most long zooms suffer at their maximal focal length. This lens doesn't. It is significantly better than the Nikon 80-400 (which isn't optimal @ 400mm) and is also sharper in my experience than the Nikon 200-500. I've taken moon shots with a D810 and the 80-400, 200-500, and 300 f/2.8. The images with my Sony A7R2 and 100-400 are considerably sharper than any I have achieved with my Nikon. The 100-400 is also much more walk around friendly. In this specific case, I would dispute your assertion that long telephoto zooms involve compromises relating to IQ.
A "walk around" lens seems like an easy term to agree to, but it really isn't. Does it mean a jack-of-all trades under any light and with any subject? Does it refer to "street photography"? Are we talking about walking about in daylight? Low light? Urban setting? Zoo? Wilderness? Indoors? Photographing people? Animals? Flowers? Bugs? Architecture? Vistas? I'm being somewhat facetious here as some of the examples I've given may not fall under the generally accepted term of "walk around", but understand that different people often gravitate to specific types of images even when they are just "walking around".
And what is the intended output (emails, web, small prints, large prints, magazines, gallery exhibits, etc.)?
All of these things influence choice of a good "walk around" lens.
The choice of a walk-around lens obviously hinges on what you like to shoot when walking around. If I could only pick one focal range/lens it would probably be a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. Or a 35mm/50mm f/1.4 prime. Depending on the light I was expecting to find and how important subject isolation was for my mood and what I was expecting to shoot.
I made the switch to Sony a few years ago (I think it's been a few years) and currently walk around with either the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom or 25mm Batis and 55mm Sony/Zeiss. Unless I am walking around somewhere where I know I will want a longer lens, and then I'm using the new 100-400.
The 100-400 is a stellar lens. @phrehdd it is actually remarkable throughout the zoom range even on the long end. I agree with you that most long zooms suffer at their maximal focal length. This lens doesn't. It is significantly better than the Nikon 80-400 (which isn't optimal @ 400mm) and is also sharper in my experience than the Nikon 200-500. I've taken moon shots with a D810 and the 80-400, 200-500, and 300 f/2.8. The images with my Sony A7R2 and 100-400 are considerably sharper than any I have achieved with my Nikon. The 100-400 is also much more walk around friendly. In this specific case, I would dispute your assertion that long telephoto zooms involve compromises relating to IQ.
A "walk around" lens seems like an easy term to agree to, but it really isn't. Does it mean a jack-of-all trades under any light and with any subject? Does it refer to "street photography"? Are we talking about walking about in daylight? Low light? Urban setting? Zoo? Wilderness? Indoors? Photographing people? Animals? Flowers? Bugs? Architecture? Vistas? I'm being somewhat facetious here as some of the examples I've given may not fall under the generally accepted term of "walk around", but understand that different people often gravitate to specific types of images even when they are just "walking around".
And what is the intended output (emails, web, small prints, large prints, magazines, gallery exhibits, etc.)?
All of these things influence choice of a good "walk around" lens.
Last edited:
Yes I agree that the term walk around does mean different things to different people. For me is walking around the beach or a hiking trail with my dogs. So that means traveling light with just one lens. I settled in with the Nikon 24 to 120.