Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Best walk around lens?

profile picture
Sean.
Posts: 226 - Karma: 50
Hey NS, its been a while since I last posted.

I took a break from shooting and I now decided that its something I need to do for the rest of my life.

Right now I have a Canon 60D with a Canon 50 f/1.4, a sigma 18-50 piece of shit, and a canon 50-250.

Im looking for the best walk-around lens. Any suggestions????

No budget, this is to be looked at as an investment. I want it to be a high-quality piece of glass.
Dec 2 2012 3:51PM
1 0
profile picture
p.hawks
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
samyang/rokinon 35mm f1.4, or 24mm f1.4 if you want something a little wider (35 will be like a 50 on full frame, 24 will be like a 35 on full frame). Sigma 30mm f1.4 gets pretty good reviews. I am really a fan of the 50mm length, so I usually leave the equivalent (25mm) lens on my gh2. Some people prefer zooms, and there are many situations where it is easier to use a zoom. The tamron 17-50 is supposed to be pretty solid, though a few people have begun to bash its photo abilities. Realistically though, I would say that getting a 50mm equivalent was one of the best investments I made as far as photo goes
Dec 2 2012 4:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Sean.
Posts: 226 - Karma: 50
I already have a Canon 50mm f/1.4 which is my all time favorite lens.

I dont know if I should be looking for a good zoom or prime lens. I want a lens that can pretty much handle all types of photography. I want something that is good in low light situations because I will be taking a ton of long exposure star shots.

I want a lens that can handle it all. my request sounds impossible lol


Dec 2 2012 4:10PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Maybe a 35 or 28mm lens? Is the 50mm too zoomed in for some shots for you? Maybe you could get a 17-50 2.8? Or do you want a prime?
Dec 2 2012 5:00PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
wait what? Why is everyone recommending primes? They are defiantly not the best walk around lens. If you are shooting outside, the 24-105 IS woud be my choice. If your on a budget, it would be the Tamron 17-50. Primes are sharp and super fun to shoot with, but they aren't really that good of walk around lenses IMO.
Dec 2 2012 5:10PM
0 0
profile picture
p.hawks
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
I know, but it is like an 80mm on your 60d (full frame equivalent). I am saying to get a wider lens, so that it will be the equivalent of a 50mm on full frame. I, as well as many others, like the 50mm equivalent as a walkaround lens. For me on my gh2, this is a 25mm lens. on my spotmatic, i use a helios which is 58mm. If I had a 60d, I would use something in the 28-35mm range, like the primes I suggested
Dec 2 2012 5:11PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Yeah I'd say a 17-50 would be best, but sometimes primes are fun to walk around with, especially like a 28mm or 35mm (for crop sensor) because you have to move around and you need to think more about composition and stuff. I like to do that, but maybe for like vacation and traveling a zoom would be better. Not sure what the OP is going to do with it.
Dec 2 2012 5:12PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
I agree, just not for his situation. I shot with a 50mm for 2 months before I even had any sort of zoom. It defiantly makes you work around your camera and look at stuff differently, but when Im walking around and trying to get shots in the city, I dont want to have to dick around with having to move back/forward, getting in the street, and shit like that.

If your on a FF, the 24-105 IS would be awesome. Its still sick on a crop, but you wont be able to get a super wide shot, but you will have more focal length on the long end of the lens.
Dec 2 2012 5:15PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
good point. op what kind of a budget do you have? Are you not satisfied by your 18-50 sigma? Is it not long enough? Not wide enough? Or is it jsut shitty optics?
Dec 2 2012 5:24PM
0 0
profile picture
rudedog41
Posts: 605 - Karma: 135
I'm surprised no one has suggested a canon 17 40 L lens. From what I have seen it seems like a great piece of glass for walking around with!
Dec 2 2012 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
I don't see why you'd get that over the 17-50 2.8 lenses, especially the ones with IS. Sure it may be sharper but it has no is and is slower (f4 vs f2.8). It's an awesome lens but the 17-50 is much better imo.
Dec 2 2012 5:36PM
0 0
profile picture
rudedog41
Posts: 605 - Karma: 135
valid point my good sir
Dec 2 2012 5:37PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
I shot with it once. Pretty meh IMO. Slow for a mid zoom range, and only a little bit sharper than the Tamron.
Dec 2 2012 5:37PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
has anyone here used the sigma 17-70 lens? It seems kind of interesting. A bit slower than the 17-50, but it has IS and is F4 at 70mm, and is only $400 new.
Dec 2 2012 5:39PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
tamron 28-85 is a solid all around lens too for cheap. sure its not the same quality as a 24-70L but it would be good enough for you it sounds like.
Dec 2 2012 5:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Sean.
Posts: 226 - Karma: 50
From the information I have received in this thread I assume that these are the lenses I should look into.

First, the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS

Second, the Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 VC


I really like what the 24-105mm has to offer. I have used the Tamron 17-50mm and I loved it. I have not used the 24-105mm.

Dec 2 2012 7:11PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Don't forget the 28-85 tamron. It's supposed to be pretty good, like the 24-70
Dec 2 2012 7:23PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31038 - Karma: 29,002
24-105
Dec 2 2012 7:49PM
0 0
profile picture
terraclot
Posts: 438 - Karma: 665
I recently sold off a 24-70L in hopes to pick up a 24-105. I'd been using the 24-70 as a walkaround, and after having this 24-105 for a few months, I've decided that the 24-70 made me want to take my camera out on a whim less often to go shoot. If I were on my way somewhere and considered "Oh, I'll take my camera and see if I can get anything" I'd be much more likely to pick it up off my desk with a 24-105 attached than a 24-70.

Although I loved the copy of the 24-70 I had, the functionality of the 24-105 beats out the performance and weight of the 24-70. If you're gonna have one lens of the two attached to your body, get yourself a 105, and save a few bills too.
Dec 2 2012 10:23PM
0 0
profile picture
SSteezle
Posts: 9221 - Karma: 9,939
I was going to recommend the 24-70 because I've shot with it, but this guy brings up a good point. If you're truly looking for an all-around lens and can sacrifice a few stops, I'd go with the 24-105. I've never shot with it, but I've heard nothing but great things
Dec 3 2012 12:39AM
0 0
profile picture
TravelsTI
Posts: 1000 - Karma: 353
24-105 F/4L

Dec 3 2012 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Sklar
Posts: 8863 - Karma: 31,577
i'm curious as to why people recommend the 24-105 over the 24-70? as i may go full frame and be interested din these lenses someday
Dec 3 2012 1:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarwall
Posts: 1180 - Karma: 50
The 24-105 has IS and a longer range. That doesn't sell it for me though, I'd rather have the f/2.8. When I walk around I usually take my 70-200, more fun to shoot with IMO.
Dec 3 2012 2:28AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
I'm sorry, but a 70-200 is NOT a walk around lens. Maybe if you're walking around the block but I think OP wants something he can take everywhere.
Dec 3 2012 2:32AM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarwall
Posts: 1180 - Karma: 50
Im in no way suggesting it as a walkaround in this situation. 24-70 all the way. I just find it is the lens I use ~70% of the time when I'm walking around.
Dec 3 2012 2:39AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
I just cant imagine walking around with a 70-200 for longer than like 30 mins max ha i feel like it would just be so annoying after awhile.
Dec 3 2012 2:40AM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarwall
Posts: 1180 - Karma: 50
I feel you. Most of the stuff I do is long distance compounding of textures, which requires the length and compression you can only get with a tele. Standard zooms don't do that for me, but they are great in certain situations. My 24-70 is bitchin' for indoor sports and concerts, but I don't really like using it outside of those settings.
Dec 3 2012 2:54AM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
Longer range, IS, cheaper
Dec 3 2012 6:49AM
0 0
profile picture
TylerVig
Posts: 1 - Karma: 15

This lens is magnificent! The stabilizer and glass in this lens are definitely worth your time and money. I haven't had the chance to use this lens during the winter yet, but the time I have spent with this lens has definitely proved Sigmas worthiness in my camera bag! Definitely recommend this lens to anyone who wants a great lens for free hand shooting.

Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom Lens for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony/Minolta, and Sigma DSLRs with APS-C Sensors

Click for larger image

Product Highlights

  • For Canon DSLRs with APS-C Size Sensors
  • 4 Stops of Anti-Shake (OS) Compensation
  • Aperture of f/2.8 throughout Zoom Range
  • Accepts 77mm Filters
  • Ultra Compact (Only 3.6", 91.8mm Long)
  • Multi-Layered Lens Coating
  • Excellent Correction for Aberrations
  • Hyper-Sonic Motor for Quiet/Fast AF
  • Close Focusing Distance of 11" (28cm)
  • Weighs Only 19.9 oz (565 g)


B&H PhotoVideo

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Sigma&ci=274&N=4288584247+4261208201+4291220258

Price: $669.00

Instant Savings: -$50.00

You Pay: $619.00

Caution This Offer Ends: January 15, 2013


For Canon

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689620-REG/Sigma_583101_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

For Nikon

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

For Pentax

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689624-REG/Sigma_583109_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

For Sony/Minolta

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689618-REG/Sigma_583205_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

Sigma

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689625-REG/Sigma_583110_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

Dec 3 2012 11:05AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
Tamron 17-50 is better
Dec 3 2012 1:16PM
0 0
profile picture
terraclot
Posts: 438 - Karma: 665
I shoot full frame and have owned both of these lenses, although had the 24-70 for longer than I've had the 24-105 so far. From what I've experienced so far with the 24-105, the IS can nearly make up for it being an f/4. A whole stop of exposure is gained from its largest aperture being f/2.8 on the 24-70, but it lacks Image Stabilization, and it's kept me happy knowing that I can bump my shutter up two thirds of a stop and turn on stabilization (usually leave it off because I'm with a tripod the majority of the time) and still have a very similar exposure, but with a deeper (just slightly) focus and slower shutter (which sometimes can be too slow for what it's being applied to).

The 24-70 would be better for you if you spent most of your shooting time at contracted events, such as wedding ceremonies and commercial work. I've used both lenses for reasons as this thread is titled. So, when lugging around a full frame body that's not a Leica, soooo something heavier than your standard aps-c type of prosumer, for the sake of functionality and usability, I say go for the 24-105 if you ever do invest in either of these lenses. The 24-70 II is out of most our budgets, I'd assume. If cost wasn't an issue, I'd recommend that based on the reviews I've seen about it sharpness stacked up to its predecessor and its weight as well. If you're going to carry around a DSLR with a daily driver, you may as well make your setup as light as possible with the most range without giving up image quality.. therefore 24-105>24-70. When i switched to Canon, and even before, I always drooled over the 24-70, but I'm happier with the 24-105 at the moment.


Dec 3 2012 4:27PM
0 0
profile picture
SamColby
Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006
honestly a fast fifty is one of the most useful lenses you can own. challenges you to think about your shot and move around, rather than just zoom. plus 50mm is apporximately the focal length of your eyes, so there is no telephoto distance distorion, the focal length just looks nice.
Dec 5 2012 8:19AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
If you're shoot full frame like a 5d
Dec 5 2012 4:39PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Not really...

Dec 5 2012 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
I'd second this, especially since they're so cheap. But not for a $300 all around lens. Definitely go for a 17-50 then
Dec 5 2012 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
lol the sigma lens is 650...
Dec 5 2012 5:05PM
0 0
profile picture
[J_Gasper]
Posts: 2983 - Karma: 1,594
I dont know about a FF, but 50mm on a crop is defiantly tighter than what we see.
Dec 5 2012 5:08PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
much. I'd say at around 30mm ish things look the same size as they do in our eyes (from the same distance away)
Dec 5 2012 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
But we see with 2 eyes, not the 1. So it's a lot wider.
Dec 5 2012 5:22PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
Oh you'd just "say" that? You mean you read that?
Dec 5 2012 5:22PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
What? No like when I have my lens in between 28mm and 35mm marks it looks like what my eyes do. Was that said earlier in this thead?
Dec 5 2012 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
okay bro
Dec 5 2012 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
whatever
Dec 5 2012 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
chris.G
Posts: 301 - Karma: 73
You've already got a 50mm, so I would say either go with a wide-angle or a zoom lens. You can't walk around much with a zoom lens, but it will definitely give you a lot of versatility. If you're looking for something to walk around with, I would go with a wide-angle. That will especially help your star shots.

The Canon 8-15mm L seems awesome. I've never used it, but I think it could give you that edge you're looking for in a new lens.
Dec 5 2012 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
SamColby
Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006
Even if you shoot a crop sensor like a rebel or 7d, it's still the focal length of you eye... Just cropped haha. Idk something about the 50mm length just looks natural
Dec 5 2012 10:49PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61090 - Karma: 118,060
..... okay bud
Dec 5 2012 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
SamColby
Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006
Hahaha ok now I'm questioning my theory...
Dec 5 2012 10:55PM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1317 - Karma: 415
All of the f/2.8 crop zooms are mediocre, with exception of the Nikon 17-55.

If you are going to get a mediocre lens, might as well only pay $350 for it (Tamron).
Dec 6 2012 5:13AM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1317 - Karma: 415
50mm on a crop is telephoto. My 50mm prime is the one I use the least. Something in the 24-35mm range is far more useful on a crop body. If you do go tele, I find a 85mm wipes the floor with a 50mm.
Dec 6 2012 5:16AM
0 0
profile picture
SamColby
Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006
true i guess...so if your shooting a crop body get a 35, it's the equivalent of a 50 on a full frame.
Dec 6 2012 8:16AM
0 0
profile picture
jeano
Posts: 333 - Karma: 104
35 1.4 would be a nice walkaround lens :)
Dec 6 2012 9:20AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)