A single prime lens for walkaround?

<p>I'd use a lens that affords a "normal" perspective, i.e., roughly what my eyes see. So on a full frame body, it'd be the 50/1.4<br /><br />Robert, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you posing this as a hypothetical situation, rather than as a real scenario<br />for which you're seeking advice.?  If so, it seems that some posters have failed to pick up on this.</p>

<p ><em>"Rob</em><em>ert, correct me if I’mwrong, but</em><em> </em><em></em><em>aren’t</em><em> you posing this as a</em><em> </em><em></em><em>h</em><em>ypothetical situation, rather than as</em><em> a</em><em> realscenario</em><br /><em>for which you'reseeking advice.?  If so, it seemsthat some posters have failed to pickup on this. . . .</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>:"Here's your challenge. . . </em><strong><em>Thanks for playing along</em></strong><em>. I do appreicate your responses."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>Seems obvious to me</em></p>

<p > </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>'walkaround lens' could be the most ridiculous term in all of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

I too really do not understand the "walkaround lens" thing. I mean what exactly are you shooting and where do you go that your not walking around at some point with a camera. So travel, parties, the zoo, the park, the woods. I walk around at all these places so am I going to these places with my "walkaround lens"? I am being sarcastic of course, I get what people mean by it but it really is a bit silly to classify a lens this way. When I am walking around for travel I may have a different lens then the times I am walking around at a party. </p>

<p>If your looking for most general in a prime its probably something on the wider side since you can always crop in so 20-35 is the most obvious. </p>

 

<p>35 mm on full frame (20 or 24 mm would be a rough equivalent on your 1.6x crop camera)</p>

<p>Fast aperture (f/3.5 or faster)</p>

<p>VR/IS would be a big plus</p>

<p>Movements (tilt/swing and shift/rise) would be useful but not a deal-breaker.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>(1) Because 35 mm is wide enough to capture a lot of different types of scenes but not wide enough to introduce much distortion. People's faces won't taken on a distorted look even if you get fairly close to them.</p>

<p>(2) A "normal" lens is not as flexible as it offers no wide-angle capability.</p>

<p>(3) This lens would NOT be good for macro photography, sports, birds, wildlife, or head shots, but none of those applications were mentioned, so I think the 35 mm focal length is a good choice.</p>

<p>Note: For many of the applications listed by the OP a steady carbon fibre tripod would be desirable. Since most people are perfectly capable of "walking around" with a lightweight tripod, I don't believe that this negates the concept of a "walk-around" lens.</p>

 

<p>I'll answer as if this is a thought experiment. (Because some of the wishes exclude some of the others.)</p>

<p>On a <strong>small crop</strong> I'm happy with a <strong>small 50</strong>. (XTi with a 50/1.8)<br>

This makes a -in DSLR terms- lightweight combo with high image quality.<br>

It works in low light, is able to shoot a variety of subjects without making you step in too close, it combines nicely with the small viewfinder the rebel has.</p>

<p>On a <strong>full frame</strong> I might go with a better 50 or even a <strong>35</strong>.<br>

In my experience a bigger viewfinder makes shooting at wider angles way more fun than a smaller viewfinder.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, I had great fun recently walking around with a <strong>midrange crop body</strong> and a <strong>100</strong>/2.8 IS <strong>macro </strong>lens. The possibility of going from infinite range/short tele lens to 30cm range 1:1 macro is very attractive. Just forget about sweeping landscapes.</p>

<p>In short, for me it depends on the body...</p>

<p>For me this isn't a challenge as I've done it for years. Anything between 28 and 50mm on full frame will do for me. Latley I've been seduced by zooms and they are brilliant, but they are so big and heavy that I'm going back to primes.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p>"Define "walkaround lens" as a lens capable of tackling these situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, cityscapes, interiors, people, tours, landscapes(near and far), walks in the woods, etc, etc."<br>

This is why zooms were invented. I like prime lenses, mind you. In fact, my DSLR kit currently only features two prime lenses: the 24 L MKII (used on the 5D MKII for landscapes), and to 100 L macro (used on the 50D for, you guessed it, macro, and as a short tele).<br>

For your intended "walkaround general purpose do it all conceivable" I got the Canon G11.</p>

<p>I appreciate the 'game' that is being played, but:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>cityscapes, interiors, people, tours, landscapes(<strong>near and far</strong>), walks in the woods, etc, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The bold part alone seems to make it a contradiction.<br>

Thinking back to my film SLR days (primes only back then) I would tend towards 35mm - not that much wider than the human visual field but gives the option of more creative depth of field. If the APS-C is the 7D, then I would choose the 28mm and use all those pixels to be able to crop to the equivalent of up to 100mm and still print at 10x8.</p>

<p>It's just probably a poll. Yeah, a couple primes or one zoom would make more sense. Better yet, a zoom and a prime...</p>

<p>or a small P&S. </p>

<p>35mm on full frame just about every time. A 50mm otherwise. I don't even own any of my several pro zooms anymore and am happy to get shot of them as you can become a servant of their flexibility because you can 'cover everything' and so you sometimes try to. Using one prime obliterates that tendency and forces you into a more consistent photographic style. </p>

<p>A 28 mm on a crop camera would suit me best.</p>

<p>I agree with those who recommend the equivalents of a 35mm or 50mm. Personally, I like a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 on a D700 for those times when I just want to take the camera out around town just for fun, without any particular photographic goal in mind. A single normal prime can beautifully handle a surprisingly wide range of subjects, but it makes you think a great deal more about camera position and using your "foot zoom" instead of just twisting the zoom ring to set the appropriate crop around the world. If nothing else, it is an excellent exercise to help keep you from getting lazy about moving around for the optimal position.<br>

Of course, there is no "right" answer to the OP's question. It's too much a personal taste.</p>

<p>but it is something else. by just zooming in or out on a subject, you are changing the look of your photo beyond the crop. a 50mm lens on a subject at 10 metres may give you the same framing as an 75mm lens at 14 metres, but the images will not look the same. of course, prime lens shooters know this, and that is why using primes isn't a big incovenience to them...they choose a scene, visualise the image, select the appropriate focal length for the shot, then move into position. got photographers who learnt to shoot this way, the term "zooming with your feet" seems just as silly as "walkaround lens".</p>

<p>35mm lens on full frame....so that would be a 20mm, or so, on your crop frame.</p>

<p>I really appreciate all the feed back on my question. Thanks for taking the time.<br>

A couple things to add. First, this is a true question, and not something asked hypothetically. Maybe instead of the word "walkaround", I should have just asked for your opinions of a single prime lens; as if I had NO other lenses at all...PERIOD. Anyway, the answers seem to advise 35mm and wider. A couple of you suggested a 50mm as the single prime. And I'm actually leaning more in that direction myself. I guess I'd rather shoot more from a distance than with an "in your face" style. So by stepping back (and/or making a panaramic), or forward to capture details, I'd be OK. <br>

Several comments mentioned your lens decisions were based on "how I(you) see" things. I really don't know how I(me) sees things; as an indicator of which lens will give me that prospective. I've routinely used zoom lenses, and zoom in probably 80% of the time over zooming out. How could I determine just "how I see things". Might there be an exercise for determining such a thing? I'm game to try.</p>

<p>Here's a way to easily 'test' what size lens to use without having your camera:<br>

1) Get a piece of thick stock cardboard.<br>

2) Cut out a hole the exact size of your sensor (or film).<br>

3) Find (or make) a ruler with mm measurements.<br>

4) Hold up the cardboard hole to frame your shot and measure the distance from your eye (don't poke your eye out!)</p>

<p>If you framed the subject 50mm from your eye, this would be the equivalent to a 50mm lens. This works for any camera, since the cardboard hole size varies based on your film/sensor size.</p>

<p>This is a only an estimate. Good luck and have fun!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert, the only way you can know how you see, is to shoot a lot of a period of time. you will gradually hone your skill and style. you will likely get to a point where you will only need two or three prime lenses that lend themselves to the genre's of photography that you graduate to. you will no longer have that urge to cover the entire focal length range from 17mm to 400mm, that some people are afflicted with. basically, it just comes down to experience. it usually makes sense not to spend too much money on lenses until you know just what lenses suit you. this may takes years for you to reach that conclusion, but it's worth the wait, and it means you can save for some really nice glass.</p>

My usual is a 24mm or a 50mm lens with XP-2 film and a single filter on my N80.. The lens focal length would depend on where I am going to be going. Indoors or outdoors, out to lunch or hiking/cycling etc. The 24mm is the more frequent flyer.

<p>In my view, the term "walk-about lens" has a meaning that is easy to understand, though it is subjective and depends on the needs of the individual photographer. Think of it as your I'm-going-out-with-one-lens-and-one-body-to-shoot-whatever-turns-up lens - e.g. you aren't quite certain what you might find, you want to travel relatively light, intend to avoid switching lenses.</p>

<p>It also could mean "a lens that might be useful for general photography to a person who doesn't have unusual or specific needs."</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>who still thinks that the exercise of picking a <em>single prime</em> to do all of the things the OP listed is a strange one: "a lens capable of tackling these situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, cityscapes, interiors, people, tours, landscapes(near and far), walks in the woods, etc, etc." As described, this is not an exercise in picking the "best lens." It is an exercise in minimizing your losses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What is the value of limiting yourself this way? Isn't there at least equal value in choosing the right tool for the job at hand?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, I'm sure you're aware that "limiting yourself this way" is a traditional (if controversial) method of learning to see photographically. For example:</p>

<p>"I'll say this: A year with a single Leica and a single lens, looking at light and ignoring color, will teach you as much about actually seeing photographs as three years in any photo school, and as much as ten or fifteen years (or more) of mucking about buying and selling and shopping for gear like the average hobbyist."<br /> -<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html">Mike Johnston</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I could use only 1 lens on a full frame camera, it would be a 50mm f/1.4. Light, fast, sharp and a reasonable length. I work a lot with people and faces on the street and a 35 seems too wide. On an 1.6x sensor, a 35mm would be my choice and an f/1.4 if I could afford it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dan. You restated my intentions perfectly. Bob</p>

<p>The part "how I see things" is interesting. For me, it is why I use primes more and more, when I can. With a prime, I know what field of view I will get. I know where to go or what to do when I want to get a specific angle. So 'pre-visualising the photo' just works better, and the second I watch through the viewfinder, I can work out the details, rather than start composing.<br>

Zooms allow more laziness, and for that reason seem to make me more a "routine" shooter (which you could say is a lack of my discipline too, of course). So, that partially echoes what Ralph just said 2 posts ago, but I see no reason to limit to 1 prime, though.<br>

Because, another reason to like primes: they are small and light. I'd at least bring 2 or 3 if I can. If you really really make me choose, it would be 35mm (on a APS-C body). But I'd miss the 24mm dearly, and the 105mm also very often (all Nikon lenses, so the exact types may be less interesting in the EOS forums).</p>

<p>I don't think zooms allow laziness, they give you versatility. With a zoom I can take 1 shot at 24 and the next at 105. 2 completely different shots in the same scene.</p>

<p>When my son was a little baby (unable to move), I would have the 50mm f/1.4 glued to my 30D. Now that he's a little bigger (17 months and running), I've switched to my 28mm f/1.8.</p>