Walk Around Lens

[Shutterbug]

I dont have one single walk around lens. If I have my camera I always have my camera bag as well. So I always have two lens'.

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 This takes care of wide angle and low light.
Then I have the Canon 70-200 F4 L (non IS) lens.

I know you said the L lens are out of your budget but the F4 Non IS version runs about $640 over at B&H. It takes awesome photos. I had it around my neck all weekend at MidOhio Race course for the Indy car races all last weekend and weight wise it wasnt that bad at all.

 

[Ratpack]

I just picked up the Tamron 18-279 for my Nikon and love it. Sure it may not be a pro lens but it serves my purposes fine. At full zoom, it will still focus on things about a foot away, making it a great macro lens. I hope to really try it out this weekend and will try to post some photos.

 

[jann1033]

I dont have one single walk around lens. If I have my camera I always have my camera bag as well. So I always have two lens'.

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 This takes care of wide angle and low light.
Then I have the Canon 70-200 F4 L (non IS) lens.

I know you said the L lens are out of your budget but the F4 Non IS version runs about $640 over at B&H. It takes awesome photos. I had it around my neck all weekend at MidOhio Race course for the Indy car races all last weekend and weight wise it wasnt that bad at all.

that's the same set up i use. i also take a really light macro ( 100) and my 50mm f1.8 ( never use it now with the 17-50 but it's light enough i forget it's in my bag.) i have a tiny of no name bag i take that is only about the size of a normal purse and usually my monopod on the camera but closed so it's not a lot to carry at all.

 

[jann1033]

I do have the 28-135 IS and I don't like it. I've had it looked at and the camera store here thinks it is ok but I can get sharper shots from my $100 p&s.

I'm currently back on the 18-55 kit lens but I have the old non-is one so it isn't good either.

.

how old is your 28-135? if it's under warranty you might want to get it calibrated. i have a copy that is fairly sharp( not l glass sharp but then again , it's not l glass) but i think they vary widely . if your old 18-55 is sharper than it, the 28 should be much better than that ( at least my old 18-55 vs my 28-135). even if you don't use it much it , maybe you would if it were sharper

 

[KarenAylwood]

It is difficult to show sharpness of a lens on the web, a 800 x 600 image doesn't really push the boundaries very much. Still, it is all we have, so here is one from a 24-105 (at 40mm):

Great pic! I'm guessing this is using a tripod??

 

[boBQuincy]

Great pic! I'm guessing this is using a tripod??

Thanks! Yep, a tripod for sure for this long exposure. Even though the 24-105 has IS the stabilization only works well in a fairly narrow range of shutter speeds, maybe about 1/4 to 1/100 for a lens of 105 mm.

While on the subject of sharpness, one of my favorite photo ideas is to use some form of camera support for almost every photo. With lenses like this that resolve well over 2000 lines and 15 MP sensors it doesn't take much camera movement at all to begin to lose sharpness. Add the fact that we can now easily inspect our images at 100% size and the bar for sharpness is raised to where very few handheld photos are taking advantage of what the lens & sensor can provide. Because of this I carry a monopod everywhere and use it for most photos.

Ok, off the soapbox for now...

 

[pointandshoot]

I use the Canon 24-104 f4 IS as my walking around lens. It is tack sharp and IS for low light. I figure what I give up on zoom range I get back in image quality over a zoom with more coverage.

I have used the 24-70 f2.8. Plenty sharp but I find the IS and the extra zoom is needed in a general purpose lens for my shooting.

Chuck