# Help Choosing the Right Lens.  High Quality Walkaround



## Nataris (Oct 5, 2015)

Hello everyone.

I need some help choosing the next lens to pair with a future upgrade, 7d2. I shoot a bit of everything.  Sports, events,  wild life, landscape,  macro and portrait.  Video as well.  Paid amateur that is looking to get deeper into the professional game.

I need a high quality walkaround lens for personal travel and fun.  But sharp enough for any paid jobs that might come along.  Im looking to replace the 2 kit lens I bought with the camera as I feel I've outgrown what they offer.  Preferably something with a fixed focal length, somewhat light and manageable.  Fast, at least F4.  And sharp as a tact.  Also if possible, one that isn't limited to only crop sensors.  I plan to get a full frame way down the line. Budget is around 1k max ish, for this lens).

Current lenses
18-55 and 55-250 kit lens. 

Sigma 18-35 1.8
Nifty Fifty
100 Macro F2.8
Sigma 100-300 F4 (which I need to repair the auto focus alignment)

It boils down to wanting a lens that I can pair well with the sigma 18-35.  That is fast, somewhat light and affordable (So no 70-200 please!  lol).  And a great overall walkaround lens that somewhat fills the 35-150mm gap.

I have narrowed it down to these 3 but I'd consider anything else.
-Canon or sigma 24-105 f4.  (This seems to be the one I like that most.   But that overlap with the 18-35 bugs me a bit.

-Sigma 50-150 F2.8

-Tokina 50-135 F2.8

Any thoughts or suggestions here?  I could really use some help.   Thanks for your time and help!


----------



## Rob5589 (Oct 5, 2015)

What do your current lenses _not _do for you?


----------



## Nataris (Oct 6, 2015)

Rob5589 said:


> What do your current lenses _not _do for you?



Well for starters, I would like a walkaround lens in the focal range listed above because I do a bit of hiking and outdoor activities where I really don't have the time or opportunity to keep switching my lenses around. 

A recent trip to Puerto Rico showed me how nice it would be if I had a solid, dedicated walkaround lens.  I was switching out 2-3 lenses every 20 minutes and it was driving me nuts.


----------



## Emanuel M (Oct 6, 2015)

You have all ranges covered from 18 to 400mm, except on a little gap there on the 50 to 100mm (on APS-C sensor it's not that important).
If you feel the need for something between 50 and 100, you can get the 85mm f/1.8.
Why don´t you want a 70-200mm f/2.8?
It's kinda short for some wildlife, but it's very good for portraits, sports (some sports), and you can even combine it with a 2X TC and you still get a 400mm f/5.6 (roughly).
I would prefer this 70-200mm to a 50-150mm.

Cheers


----------



## jaomul (Oct 6, 2015)

You'll probably find the sigma 100-300 to be one of the best lenses going once it's fixed. The sigma 18-35 is also excllent. You are short the 35-100 with zoom as you say. The fact that a 24-105 overlaps your sigma is imo a good thing, as it saves changing for shots in the 24-35 irrelevant of your lens on camera.

I seem to shoot at lots of different focal lengths also. I'm going to suggest something a little different. Go for the 24-105mm canon, it can be got cheap and its focus point doesn't change when zooming (handy for video). Keep your current body when you upgrade and get a good carrier system or even buy canons cheapest entry level to mount a second lens on board. Saves changing lenses and you talk about pro somewhere along the line so you'll likely need  backup anyway


----------



## Emanuel M (Oct 6, 2015)

He has a nifty fifty 
The "problem" might be the lens swap all the time he wants more or less zoom.
That's why i like having two bodies 
But the one I use the most is the 17-50mm - I was about to buy the 18-35, but I knew the 17-50 would be better for me (and I have a 35mm f/1.8 already).

Cheers


----------



## soufiej (Oct 6, 2015)

When I think "walk around lens", I think prime and don't think about focal length.  When I think "sharp as a" tack, I think prime since any zoom will have compromises at its extremes.

The newer pancake lenses from Canon, the 24mm or the 40 mm, would be my choice.  They are inexpensive enough to own both and cheap enough to pass off with your camera if your upgrade to full frame.  

They both make for a nice compact package when mounted that is, IMO, great for just walkin'round and shooting what interests me.

Don't know your opinion of Rockwell, but ...  How to Carry Less

Why Fixed Lenses Take Better Pictures

Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM Review

Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Lens Review


----------



## Nataris (Oct 6, 2015)

Thanks for the help everyone.  But like i said i was looking for a lens that can cover a decent focal range so i dont have to change lens every 10 minutes.

I understand primes are better.  I understand my focal length is covered.  But it isnt covered without having to bring 2 or 3 lenses.

Why dont i want a 70-200?  Because its big and heavy and not exactly a lens you would enjoy carrying around when you take a trip into the city or a weekend vacation.

I also know the sigma 100-300 is a killer lens.  But none of that is really solving the issue im having.  Which is to have a single zoom lens that is relatively light and portable. 

This isnt an issue of my prime lenses not covering the focal length.  Its an issue of needing a lens for when i want to travel light while either hiking or exploring a city.

Thst means not switching between primes and not carrying around a tank in the 70-200.


----------



## Rob5589 (Oct 6, 2015)

The 24-105 seems like a good fit. If you want one "do it all" lens, 50mm on the low end isn't wide enough, especially on a crop sensor.


----------



## soufiej (Oct 8, 2015)

_"I understand primes are better. I understand my focal length is covered. But it isnt covered without having to bring 2 or 3 lenses."

"This isnt an issue of my prime lenses not covering the focal length. Its an issue of needing a lens for when i want to travel light while either hiking or exploring a city."_


I guess I'm sort of confused by those responses.  And I'm not at all trying to talk you in to doing something you don't want to do but, ...

Say you take the 24mm and the 50mm lens with you.  Those two together are a smaller combined package than one zoom lens.  And they're faster plus they're higher quality in terms of image quality.  

If you're going to "travel light" with that body, you cannot get any "lighter" than when you simply mount the 24mm on your body and go out and shoot.

Zoom with your feet.

You own a DSLR and with a DSLR the "versatility" of the system comes from being able to select a lens that's appropriate for the shot.  

Take just the 24mm and you have what is close to an old fashioned 35mm.  Any idea how many great photos were taken with just one single 35mm lens?

Like I said, I'm not trying to talk you into anything.  But IMO you don't seem to be putting any logic to your request.

The broader you make the zoom, either the more you will pay or the less IQ you will have.   And it's bound to travel heavier than a single prime.  

Just my opinion.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 8, 2015)

An alternate view...

When "I" think walk-around lens, I think zoom lens, since I want one lens that can handle the majority of things that pop up. I know that from f/6.3 to f/8, an aperture range I use a lot, almost any lens is as "sharp" as a $2,499 camera-maker zoom lens, and that 99.9 percent of people will evaluate the photos by their content,style, and execution. Period. "Sharpness" is not even on their list. If I need to convey the feeling of sharpness, I can do that in Lightroom by painting on clarity and sharpening to selected areas, or by selectively manipulating one of the *important colors in the shot*. It is no longer 1975, so lens sharpness, and light fall-off, and even lens distortion--those three critical old-timey things, can be corrected/enhanced/altered in software on shots that need those things corrected.

So, with the above being said, I look for a small and light walk-around lens. Something inconspicuous. Something that does not make you look like a total perv in social situations; that immediately, and I mean immediately, wipes off the map large, bulky lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. To me walk-around means a lens for casual photo situations, where smaller is better, where lighter is better, where convenience and ease of shooting fluidly, where all those things are more critical than getting those last 200 line pairs per millimeter at f/4.5. Walk-around lenses are NOT lenses with fast maximum apertures for shooting in marginal light; once you start getting into that shooting scenario, then it is time to move to the category of *specialty lens, *like an expensive 24mm f/1.4 or a 35mm f/1.4 for close-in work, or the 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses for moderate distance, or the 135mm f/2 lens for moderate-to-longer range shots.

The quality of the photo will in all places other than on photo boards, be determined by the content, style, and execution that YOU bring to the photos. Shoot better scenes, prettier women, lovelier flowers, in better light, or with better technique, and the photos will be "better". Just so you know what I'm talking about, I mean with lenses like the Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3~4.5 ($59), the Nikkor 28-80mm f/slow to f/slow-poke ($49), and the Nikkor 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S ($89)...those types of lenses are all about as good at f/6.3 to f/8 as are lenses that cost up to twenty times as much and which weigh eight to ten times more.

"Zoom with your feet" is a nice catch-phrase, but it's a total lie. Focal length is an incredibly useful controller of the picture, and zooming with your feet messes with perspective to a ruinous degree with short focal length lenses like 24mm and even 35mm. Short lenses are terrible distorters of apparent size, apparent distance, and they include wayyyyyyyyyyy too wide an angle BEHIND THE SUBJECT! That is why so,so many zoom lenses made have been from *moderate* wide-angle to moderately short telephoto: this give you the option to go semi-wide, to normal, to moderately short telephoto, which is three entirely different types of pictures. When you have a zoom, you can shoot things the way you want them to look; when you walk around with a 24 or a 50, your camera becomes basically *a hammer, in search of nails*, a one-trick pony,etc.,etc.. You must force the SCENE to conform to ONE LENS. Uh-uh. No.

In answer to your specific three lenses: -Sigma 50-150 F2.8


----------



## soufiej (Oct 8, 2015)

Derrel, *a.k.a. "Mr. Rain Cloud*" (I assume that is not your Native American given name),  I think you and I simply "think" differently when we think "walk around lens". 

If "zoom with your feet" is a total lie, then "zoom lenses make for a lazy photographer" is a truism IMO. 


_"Focal length is an incredibly useful controller of the picture, and zooming with your feet messes with perspective to a ruinous degree with short focal length lenses like 24mm and even 35mm. Short lenses are terrible distorters of apparent size, apparent distance, and they include wayyyyyyyyyyy too wide an angle BEHIND THE SUBJECT!"_



"Terrible distorters"?! 

*195 consumer reviews on B&H's site disagree with your opinion*.  There the 24mm has received an overall 4.5 stars; Canon  EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Lens 9522B002 B&H Photo Video

*Canon users give it five stars*; Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM | Canon Online Store

*253 Amazon users give the 24mm STM five stars*; http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-24mm-2-8-Lens/dp/B00NI3BZ5K

*693* give the new 40mm pancake five stars.

And *272* give the 50mm five stars.

*Looking at the Fuji X100T with its fixed 23mm lens, 119 users give it 4.5 stars*; http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X100...44336922&sr=1-1&keywords=black+fujifilm+x100t


I'd say take a look at the sample images on these two sites; Fuji X100T Review

The Myth of More (Not Just Another Fuji X100T Review) ... interesting read if you feel zooming with your feet is absurd.

And just a few samples for the Canon 24mm; canon ef-s 24mm f/2.8 stm lens sample images - Google Search


Yes, you can manipulate distortion with a short lens.  You can do that with just about any lens.


" ... when you walk around with a 24 or a 50, your camera becomes basically *a hammer, in search of nails*, a one-trick pony,etc.,etc.. You must force the SCENE to conform to ONE LENS."


Oh! come on!   *A hammer?!!!*

OK, yes, if that's how you think about a prime lens, then you can only see a prime as a hammer. 

As I said, you and I simply "think" differently when we are walkin'round with our camera. 

*And I've just given you over 1500 examples of people (users) who think of a 23 to 50mm prime lens as being terrific.*


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 9, 2015)

Derrel said:


> An alternate view...
> 
> When "I" think walk-around lens, I think zoom lens, since I want one lens that can handle the majority of things that pop up. I know that from f/6.3 to f/8, an aperture range I use a lot, almost any lens is as "sharp" as a $2,499 camera-maker zoom lens, and that 99.9 percent of people will evaluate the photos by their content,style, and execution. Period. "Sharpness" is not even on their list. If I need to convey the feeling of sharpness, I can do that in Lightroom by painting on clarity and sharpening to selected areas, or by selectively manipulating one of the *important colors in the shot*. It is no longer 1975, so lens sharpness, and light fall-off, and even lens distortion--those three critical old-timey things, can be corrected/enhanced/altered in software on shots that need those things corrected.
> 
> ...


So true about primes. I like your description. I think they work great if your walking around on a crowded, tight, street. 

I am by no means an expert but for me the sigma 17-50mm zoom is on my camera the most. It fits how I shoot and the zoom is very handy. I think the focal length is longer than 50mm on my d3300 but I could be wrong. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------

