Best walkaround lens

[asmodai]

I'm going to give you an atypical suggestion:


Get a really, really nice prime. And nothing else.





I started on a 20d with the 35 1.4L. I worked exclusively with that for nearly two years. Being forced to work with one framing really let me focus on composition as an artistic and not a technical pursuit. I found ways of shooting and seeing the world that were unusual to compensate for the very standard framing. My shots started to have a distinctive feel, no longer looking like 'the obvious choice' of how or what to shoot. In short, working this way really let me find my voice. I have a full kit now, but if I had the choice I would not give that kit to sophomore-in-college me.





As to which prime, I can directly attest my experience with the 35L. It winds up being nearly 50mm on your body (almost what your eye sees); so while it is perhaps the most generally usable prime, it is arguably a timid choice. You could also look at the 85 f/1.2L (amazing lens, probably my most used these days, perhaps a bit too tight on your body), the 24 f/1.4L (rented it and fell in love), or if you're feeling especially daring and experimental, the 14 f/2.8L. If I were to do it again I'd go with the 35 or the 24. But maybe going more extreme would have a more extreme effect.





So that's my advice. Or my story. I'm sure somebody will want to rebut me. Let me just say: I'm not saying any other choice is wrong. I'm just sharing what really, really helped me.

[Keith B]

asmodai


I like that advice, probably won't be popular but...


My first dSLR was a 40D w/28-135 and the first lens I bought was the 50 1.4 and the next was 24 1.4L. I think because of $$$ paid for the 24 I made myself shoot just about everything with it. I actually really liked the focal length that it turned out to be 38.4. I preferred it over the 50 (80mm) range. I think it does make you more aware of composition.


Now with my 5D, I crave the 35 1.4L to get back that focal range. I shoot with my 16-35 II most of the time, but I love locking on the 24 every once in a while. The extra 2 stops is nice too.

[cian3307]

Interesting idea, reminds me of the days when all I had was a 50mm 'standard' lens. Yes, it does improve your technique by forcing you to be more thoughtful about compostion etc., but (and a very big but), I wouldn't fancy trying to get a closeup shot of a cape buffalo or an elephant with a 24mm lens! I'd rather be a nice safe distance away hiding behind a 200mm or 300mm hunk of glass[]


Apart from wildlife photography though, Asmodai's suggestion does have a lot of merit!

[Daniel Browning]

My favorite walkaround lens is the 500mm f/4. I find the 1200mm f/5.6 too heavy for prolonged hand-held use, and is a little too long for portraits anyway. The 500, though, also makes a great sports, wildlife, and astro lens. If you can be bothered to use a monopod, you might get away with the more unweildy 800mm f/5.6.


Seriously, though, my favorite walkaround is the 24mm f/1.4 II on the 5D2. But for 400D shooters I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

[Keith B]

Seriously, though, my favorite walkaround is the 24mm f/1.4 II on the 5D2. But for 400D shooters I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

There goes Daniel rubbing the 24 f/1.4 II in my face again.[8o|]

[asmodai]

I wouldn't fancy trying to get a closeup shot of a cape buffalo or an elephant with a 24mm lens! I'd rather be a nice safe distance away hiding behind a 200mm or 300mm hunk of glass[img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

You and I are very, very different people [:P]

[wusstigphoto]

The original reason I bought my 30D and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was for a 2 week trip to NY and Italy two summers ago. I spent oodles of time researching my choices and came up with a budget of ~$2K and at the time the 40D was not yet released. I couldn't wait for it so I pulled the trigger. Wish I had more time to hone my skills prior to the trip but I did come away with some really nice shots.


MY REASONING for going with such a wide lens with a 2.8 aperature was knowing I'd be going through a lot of Italian churches (such as the Vatican) where flash photography is not allowed (yeah right) and low light conditions was going to be the norm.On a 1.6x body, its the equivelant of a 28-85mm lens... quite fine for most walk-arounds.


I now have the 70-200 f/2.8 L so I'm set for another trip time and money permitting...


Here's a feel for some of the captures I got. My Flickr site has the right crops/full view and lots of my favorite pics I've taken over the years (Japan pics taken with a Sony F707 btw)...

[Alan]

The 24-105 f/4 L. Good for landscapes, and it has a decent zoom. IS, to boot. Covers the "walk around" range.

[cian3307]

I wouldn't fancy trying to get a closeup shot of a cape buffalo or an elephant with a 24mm lens! I'd rather be a nice safe distance away hiding behind a 200mm or 300mm hunk of glass[img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You and I are very, very different people [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Heh heh, if you're saying what I think you're saying, the big difference between us is life expectancy - mine will be considerably longer than yours!!!![][]

[crosbyharbison]

@Keith Wow, you and I started out with exactly the same gear, 40d, 28-135, 50/1.4. although I plan on diverging from out pattern by selling the 28-135 and buying a 16-35 and a 70-200 to fill the gap.