Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
"Walk Around" Lens for my Sony A700
Jan 5, 2012 22:32:14 #
Hi,
For the longest time I've used a Sigma and then Sony 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 for my everyday walk around lens. I found them fine for an all around lens.. and the 250 end gave a pretty strong reach. For longer shots I used the Sony G 70-400. Then I got the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 and it's displaced the 18-250 as my everyday. I know doesn't have the reach of the 18-250, but it's so much better in every way, that I can't even think of putting the 18-250 back on. I now use the Zeiss 24-70 as my walk around, then I switch to the big 70-400 when I need more reach. Am I really missing anything from not having that 18-24 window?
I'm really interested in what you guys/gals are using for your everyday walk around setup.
Thanks!
-Adlerburg
For the longest time I've used a Sigma and then Sony 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 for my everyday walk around lens. I found them fine for an all around lens.. and the 250 end gave a pretty strong reach. For longer shots I used the Sony G 70-400. Then I got the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 and it's displaced the 18-250 as my everyday. I know doesn't have the reach of the 18-250, but it's so much better in every way, that I can't even think of putting the 18-250 back on. I now use the Zeiss 24-70 as my walk around, then I switch to the big 70-400 when I need more reach. Am I really missing anything from not having that 18-24 window?
I'm really interested in what you guys/gals are using for your everyday walk around setup.
Thanks!
-Adlerburg
Jan 6, 2012 11:27:47 #
I have Canon equipment, and my "walk around" lens in the 17-55mm, f2.8. I use it probably for 90+% of my images, and use the 17mm range frequently. It equates fairly close to the old 28mm lenses we commonly used in the 35mm days. You may want to consider also carrying a wide angle zoom lens.
Jan 6, 2012 15:16:27 #
jackm1943 wrote:
I have Canon equipment, and my "walk around" lens in the 17-55mm, f2.8. I use it probably for 90+% of my images, and use the 17mm range frequently. It equates fairly close to the old 28mm lenses we commonly used in the 35mm days. You may want to consider also carrying a wide angle zoom lens.
So, forgive me for sounding novice here, but isn't the 24-70 Zeiss wide angle? It seems pretty wide. Also, is that Canon glass that you camera is wearing?
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jan 6, 2012 15:33:11 #
Yes, it is a Canon EF-S lens.
The 24, assuming you have an APS camera, would be the 35mm equivalent of about 38mm, not what I would consider wide angle. Even the 17mm is only marginally wide angle on an APS camera IMO. I also have the Canon 10-22mm zoom when real wide angle is needed.
The 24, assuming you have an APS camera, would be the 35mm equivalent of about 38mm, not what I would consider wide angle. Even the 17mm is only marginally wide angle on an APS camera IMO. I also have the Canon 10-22mm zoom when real wide angle is needed.
Jan 6, 2012 16:13:17 #
jackm1943 wrote:
Yes, it is a Canon EF-S lens.
The 24, assuming you have an APS camera, would be the 35mm equivalent of about 38mm, not what I would consider wide angle. Even the 17mm is only marginally wide angle on an APS camera IMO. I also have the Canon 10-22mm zoom when real wide angle is needed.
The 24, assuming you have an APS camera, would be the 35mm equivalent of about 38mm, not what I would consider wide angle. Even the 17mm is only marginally wide angle on an APS camera IMO. I also have the Canon 10-22mm zoom when real wide angle is needed.
I'm using it on a full frame sensor camera, and it's pretty wide :) Does great outdoor scenery with a wide 2.8 aperture ... Should I consider getting something with wider dispersion? I thought I had it covered between my 24-70 Zeiss and my 70-400 Sony G.
Jeez, glass is bleeding me poor!
Jan 6, 2012 16:42:59 #
Sorry about the misunderstanding, I assumed incorrectly. On a full frame camera, I agree that 24mm is marginally wide angle. 24-70 on your camera would be very similar to 17-55 on my APS camera, which I believe to be a near perfect walk around lens. I would still recommend you look at a separate true wide angle lens or zoom lens rather than some super zoom of lower quality.
Jan 6, 2012 16:52:36 #
jackm1943 wrote:
Sorry about the misunderstanding, I assumed incorrectly. On a full frame camera, I agree that 24mm is marginally wide angle. 24-70 on your camera would be very similar to 17-55 on my APS camera, which I believe to be a near perfect walk around lens. I would still recommend you look at a separate true wide angle lens or zoom lens rather than some super zoom of lower quality.
What do you think a truly stellar wide angle lens would be? .. and I'm sorry, the A700 in the title is not a full frame.. my A900 is.
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Jan 6, 2012 17:24:14 #
I'm not that familiar with the Sony line, except to know that you have a couple of very nice bodies. After a quick look on line, I found two Sony lenses that sound very good with reasonable prices (I hear you about the cost of good glass): the Sony 16-50 f2.8 at around $700, and the Sony 16-80 f3.5-4.5 Vario-Sonnar (Leitz made and/or designed?). With the latter, I would not be overly concerned about the smaller apertures because you are probably trying to get lots of depth of field with wide angle lenses.
Sony has a couple of wider angle zooms in the $200 range but the quality is likely to be less than you may like.
Sony has a couple of wider angle zooms in the $200 range but the quality is likely to be less than you may like.
Jan 6, 2012 17:25:06 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.