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

 

[GoCubsGo]

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

 

[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...

 

[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.) 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