Walk around lens
May 14, 2012 00:48:01 #
Bill41 wrote:
On my 20D, my Tokina 12-24 f/4 (19-38 equivalent).
Although I like my Tokina, I cannot argue with the many learned people who have expressed a preference for a "normal" prime lens. I would, however, like to offer a couple of points for your consideration.
1. The "normal" lens (defined as the diagonal of the frame) for a full size (24mm X 36mm) 35mm frame is really only 43mm; 50mm is considered "normal" because more people find it closer to human eyesight and more pleasing.
2. On a Canon such as my 20D, a 50mm lens becomes an 80mm lens, good for some uses such as portraits, but perhaps not the best length for a "normal" street lens. I understand the desire (almost an absolute requirement) for a fast lens. You might want to look at something like the Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens, which will give you the equivalent of a 45mm lens. Also, in July, Canon will ship their 28mm f/2.8 IS lens.
May 14, 2012 01:41:31 #
My walk around lens is the one that happens to be on my camera at the time. My other lens is always at my side not to far if I need that to be my walk around lens. Just silly old me.
May 14, 2012 04:48:31 #
May 14, 2012 17:47:13 #
amyinsparta wrote:
quote=rpavich I guess I'm weird. br br I never t... (show quote)
The 10-800 suggestion is a step in the right direction. Stretch it slightly in wideangle and considerably in superzoom. You also forgot to mention F1.2 - F2.8 image stabilization. Finally, make it about a third the weight of my current 28-300mm.
May 14, 2012 19:37:08 #
PNagy wrote:
quote=amyinsparta quote=rpavich I guess I'm weir... (show quote)
My dream camera would also have the capability to do e-mail and send photo's directly from the camera so I did not have to mess with the i-phone.
May 14, 2012 19:45:07 #
PNagy wrote:
quote=amyinsparta quote=rpavich I guess I'm weir... (show quote)
Sounds like the perfect lens. Now, price it at $500.
May 14, 2012 21:49:48 #
DK wrote:
quote=PNagy quote=amyinsparta quote=rpavich I g... (show quote)
$500! Heck, make it a kit lens & sell it with the body for an extra $100...
May 15, 2012 01:07:06 #
I took this shot Mothers Day Sunday with my afore-mentioned walk-around combo. The 28-300mm Nikkor F3.5-5.6 VR II on my Nikon D7000. I doubt I would have been able to get it with any lesser lens. I printed it at 20x30 for my sister (her horses and her pond) and she is ecstatic, perfectly sharp print from Costco too. Its being professionally framed tomorrow.
Dinner by the lake
May 15, 2012 01:22:32 #
Photogdog wrote:
$500! Heck, make it a kit lens & sell it with the body for an extra $100...
Pretty soon the camera manufacturers will get smart and quit selling bodies with kit lenses. You'll have to buy the lens and they'll throw in a kit body for an extra $300.
May 15, 2012 09:45:29 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I took this shot Mothers Day Sunday with my afore-mentioned walk-around combo. The 28-300mm Nikkor F3.5-5.6 VR II on my Nikon D7000. I doubt I would have been able to get it with any lesser lens. I printed it at 20x30 for my sister (her horses and her pond) and she is ecstatic, perfectly sharp print from Costco too. Its being professionally framed tomorrow.
Tried to send this before, will try again. Just shows a person that a fixed 50 doesn't cut it all the time. Hip boots wouldn't have let you get closer to these horses and they wouldn't have stayed put anyway. Cropping probably wouldn't have been acceptable either. Some of us just need more options when shooting.
May 15, 2012 09:52:43 #
DK wrote:
quote=MT Shooter I took this shot Mothers Day Sun... (show quote)
Thats my feeling exactly DK.
I shot this one about 10 minutes before the horse shot, same lens, same settings even.
Butterfly on Lilac
May 15, 2012 11:01:13 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
DK wrote:
. . . Some of us just need more options when shooting.
Which is why we choose the right lenses for what we're likely to be shooting that day, and why we have interchangeable lenses. It's also one reason why we may sometimes carry two bodies fitted with different focal lengths.
I've been taking pictures for a very long time -- since 1966 -- and have been earning a living from writing and photography since the 1970s. I have used lenses from 12mm to 1200mm on full frame, though I decided that 12mm was too wide and 1200mm too long, so I currently own only 14mm to 600mm.
Personally, I have NEVER felt the need for a big, heavy, slow, wide-ratio zoom. That doesn't mean that no-one else needs them, but equally, it doesn't mean that I limit my options in any way that I find unacceptable. I'd much rather use smaller, lighter, sharper, faster-handling, wider-aperture prime lenses, even if I do need to change them sometimes.
Cheers,
R.
May 15, 2012 16:30:40 #
I have had great shots from 15" to 100 yards with a Tamron 18-270mm. Because it is 3.5-6.3 "walking around" outside is best! ;-)
May 15, 2012 16:35:49 #
rgstoneinsc wrote:
I have had great shots from 15" to 100 yards with a Tamron 18-270mm. Because it is 3.5-6.3 "walking around" outside is best! ;-)
I also have the 18-270. I am considering using it on my Alaska trip with a 1.4 extender if I need more. I have been happy with this lens.
Apr 1, 2013 15:39:32 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.