Pellwanger Loc: South Park, Pa

I know this question has been asked before but lately I have been thinking about getting one so I would not have to lug all my equipment around. So here it is. "What walk around lens do you prefer and Why?" Thanks in advance for your answers.

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

I have a canon 28/90 for my everyday walk-a-rounds lens and like it really well... If I had my druthers it would be somewhere in the 18/120 class.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I'm different. Everyone wants a walk around that will do everything.

I'm going to say the 50mm f/1.4.

Why? Because it's tack sharp and creamy in the background!

Pellwanger Loc: South Park, Pa

Thank you for the quick reply!

Pellwanger Loc: South Park, Pa

Thanks, I happen to have that lens and I do like it. Just never thought of it as a walk around lens. I can see it though.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Yeah....you're probably thinking of a lens that can do almost anything like Mission Impossible! Where no matter what you are faced with you just turn the zoom ring and you can shoot it! (cue the Mission Impossible music) :)

In my opinion, that's sort of a false economy. You'll never catch everything you could shoot and in thinking you are "versatile" you lose (in my opinion) something very valuable....creativity with a certain focal length.

Primes like the 50mm cause you to move around, get into the action...frame your subject more carefully...move in, move out, back and forth...

That's my opinion anyway.

Also, I'm a stickler for images that are sharp, and zooms frequently aren't up to "good" prime lens standards. They are a 'jack of all trades" sort of lens.

Others may disagree on that one.

Anyway..that's my reasoning. :)

wtompkins Loc: Northern Michigan

I use the 50mm f/1.8. It's light and sharp.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

One of my favorite setups was an E620 and 25mm f2/8 pancake...when I needed the reach, and when my "foot" zoom wouldn't work, I'd slap on the 50mm f/2.

snowbear

ATM I'm using a 50mm f/1.8 and a 24mm f/2.8 for most shots.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

Some of these responses are different than others because people have different internal images of what a "walk around lens" means -- perhaps even what "walking around" means.

I interpret the need for a walk around lens to occur when one has little or no idea of what photographic opportunities will happen that day. It might be people and close, it might be landscape or urbanscape and distant, or anything in between.

My walk-around lens is an 18-200mm lens on a D300s for that very reason - I don't know what pictures will be there. If I'm truly walking around with one camera, that will be it. If I have a specific objective, I will usually have a prime lens on a D90 for that objective and the 18-200 on a D300s "just in case".

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Ahh...I KNEW we'd all come out of the woodwork at some point! :thumbup:

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

My favorite for a single lens excursion is the Nikon 28-300mm VR II, ready for almost anything with it. But if I was in a city I would want something with more wide angle, probably something like an 18-105mm.

Ricontech Loc: Colorado

I think the best for my current location is the Nikon 55-300mm VR on my D200. That range pretty well covers what I may encounter on a walk presently. While on vacation, I feel the same way unless I am fishing in the boat (not stream fishing!) then I want my 18-55mm. Stream fishing is like being on a walk!

brianjdavies Loc: Gloucester

My walkabout lens for my FF Nikon is the 24 - 120 f4. It seems pretty sharp, and there aren't many situations is doesn't handle.

Red Buses

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

35/1.4 or 50/1.5, partly for the same reasons rpavich gives, and partly because they're unobtrusive. A small prime on a Leica looks like a point-and-shoot to most people, and for no very clear reason, people seem less worried about being photographed with a P+S.

I see prairieseasons' point about "...little or no idea of what photographic opportunities will happen that day..." but I've always found this a hopelessly diffuse way of shooting: I'm much more in sympathy with rpavich's " You'll never catch everything you could shoot and in thinking you are "versatile" you lose (in my opinion) something very valuable....creativity with a certain focal length".

This doesn't mean that rpavich and I are right, and prairieseasons is wrong, but it does mean that you should think hard about how and when you've got your best pictures.

Looking at my Arles pics from 2010 -- http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles%202010.html -- it looks as if there's a mixture of 35mm and 50mm shots, but I honestly don't recall which are which. There's certainly nothing other than 35mm and 50mm, on a Leica M9. The 2009 shots -- http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles%202009.html -- were almost all taken with a 35mm on an M8.2 (53mm equivalent on the M8.2 18x27mm format: the M9 is of course full frame.

If anyone can possibly get to Arles for the Rencontres, I'd heartily recommend it. Take a look a the pics and you'll see why.

Cheers,

R.