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.
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.
Your walkaround lens...
- Thread starter flosseR
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The rest of my gear generally stays at home until I'm on a shoot.
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...
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.
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.
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