RSS
 

DSLR Tips – Choosing an “All around” lens

15 Dec

The process of deciding on a “walkaround” – “carry around” lens is different for everyone but here is some talk on the subject.

 
24 Comments

Posted in Nikon Videos

 

Tags: , , , ,

 
 

  1. Whatisright

    December 15, 2012 at 1:59 am

    I have 5 lenses. One of them is a zoom lens, and that’s the Tokina 12-24 f4. Other than that lens I only use primes.

    My friend bought the 25-105. He’s getting a 7D later this month. 1 lens that covers everything he wants to do.

     

  2. coleallensmom

    December 15, 2012 at 2:51 am

    I have a 50mm f/1.8 and 55-250mm IS. I am upgrading from the Xti to the 60d and have the choice between a 28-135mm IS USM and a 18-135mm IS. Curious as to what your opinion is on those two lenses. (Image quality is more important the zoom, imo.)

     

  3. MournX

    December 15, 2012 at 3:03 am

    disagree on the advice about not over lapping lens’ focal lengths as any zoom lens will only be most effective towards the middle of their range, so over lapping in such a way that you aren’t forced to use the extreme end focal length is a good idea to get the bets quality images-

     

  4. Manus Wittenhorst

    December 15, 2012 at 3:49 am

    Thank you for your words.The Lens is really good for videos because of the STM. So its perfectly fine for me 🙂

     

  5. nate42nd

    December 15, 2012 at 4:39 am

    I really like that lens. It’s not the highest quality but enough for most and has a great zoom range. I have used one and recommend it. I sold mine for a 24-105 F/4 L

     

  6. Manus Wittenhorst

    December 15, 2012 at 5:29 am

    What do you think of the “Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM” with the “Canon EOS 600D”. I would like to hear ur opinion. Thanks.

     

  7. Ilikecameras0602

    December 15, 2012 at 6:00 am

    I would choose the Nikon over the Canon because it has better features, performance, and value. It also kind of depends on what lenses you might want and if you want to upgrade later. If you want to upgrade later, you might want to see the brand’s entire lineup before you buy. If you want to upgrade later I would recommend Canon but if you don’t I would stick with the Nikon. Also you should remember that you might need to use the brand for your entire life so decide carefully.

     

  8. nate42nd

    December 15, 2012 at 6:35 am

    Good to hear from you. Thanks for the good words and hope you have fun shooting and sharing with us in Flickr.

     

  9. 800764

    December 15, 2012 at 7:23 am

    I’ve always really enjoyed your videos and found them really informative and above all interesting. Never knew you had a flickr group though. I am gonna look for that and join in the fun asap!

     

  10. MaGeQQQ

    December 15, 2012 at 7:56 am

    Nikon d3200 or Canon 600d? beginner in dslr

     

  11. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 8:13 am

    well there is a reason why pros use 24-70mm f2.8 over 24-105mm f4, althought 24-70mm f2.8 II is $2000 cheaper, because f2.8 gives you so much versatility in any situations. I am not a big fan of either lens because 24-105mm is too expensive for its slow aperture, and 24-70 is too big and heavy to use. I just opt for a bunch of f1.4 primes (24L, 50 1.4 Sigma, 85 1.4 Rokinon) for the general purpose range. And f2.8 is good enough for most of the situations.

     

  12. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 8:38 am

    The 17-50 is still a decent lens, but as I said, it’s a specialized lens. I got rid of my 17-55 and got the 15-85 because range was more important to me than f/2.8. MOST casual shooters will feel the same, because MOST casual shooters don’t shoot at night or in situations too dim for f/4 but not too dim for f/2.8. (Seriously, that’s a very narrow band of dimness.)

     

  13. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Bottom line:
    1. f/2.8 vs f/5 is only relevant at the 50mm (80mm equiv.) focal length and no other. At all other focal lengths, the 15-85mm is at most 1-stop slower, which is not a big difference. If speed at 50mm makes THAT big a difference to you, get a nifty fifty.

    2. On the other hand, the 15-85 has a BIG range advantage. You’ve focused entirely on the 15-17mm difference (which is big), but totally ignored the 50-85mm difference, and also the BIG difference in IS quality.

     

  14. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 9:53 am

    You must be out of your mind.
    1. I don’t care what focal length they pick 24mm or 28mm, there isn’t much of a difference when picking their pro level lens. I’ll be happy to get whatever deal they have provided they have f2.8 for the zoom.
    2. Remember we are talking about consumer level lens here, not pro level lens, so sorry I can’t do what you asked.
    3. They aren’t lowering the cost of any pro level lens no matter what focal length it is lol. Canon doesn’t care about lens design, they want $

     

  15. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 10:01 am

    CLUB LIGHTING?

    What kind of club do you go to where you can get 1/50 with f/2.8 at ISO 3200?

    That kind of situation PERFECTLY illustrates why f/2.8 is not the golden boy so many people think it is. In low light, yeah, f/2.8 is better than f/5, duh. But it still sucks. In any other conditions, you have many other options to compensate for slow speed. And remember, we’re still only talking about the LONGEST focal length on the 17-50. Indoors, I doubt he’ll be zooming in all the way regularly.

     

  16. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 10:32 am

    If you don’t think 24mm to 28mm is a big difference, then write a letter to Canon telling them that their entire pro lens design strategy is all wrong and that they can save a shitton of cash by changing all of their 24mm primes and zooms to 28mm.

    Pro lenses start at 24mm, amateur lenses start at 28mm equivalent. There is a reason for that. Yes, f/2.8 to f/5 is a big difference, but the CONDITIONS where the difference matters is the problem. Numbers don’t tell the whole story.

     

  17. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 10:46 am

    I got no time for your BS man, 15mm covers 12% more frame than 17mm. If you think that’s a big difference, no one is stopping you. But f2.8 to f5 is a big difference, 166% faster shutter speed.

     

  18. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 11:13 am

    That’s bullshit and you know it. As I said, go to cameralabs. They have a REAL WORLD photograph that shows how much is left out of the frame on 17/18mm versus 15mm. Of course it’s not as much as ultrawide on a full frame, but we’re talking about crop sensors, not full frame.

    FYI, the difference between 28mm and 24mm is about the same as the difference between 28mm and 35mm. Are you going to tell me there’s no big difference between those two focal lengths, as well?

     

  19. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 11:59 am

    Say whatever you want, 15mm and 17mm isn’t much of a difference, in layman’s terms, 17mm covers 88% of frame of a 15mm, which isn’t a big difference. Even your viewfinder have some coverage around that (unless you have 100% viewfinder). But f2.8 to f5 is a BIG difference. End of conversation.

     

  20. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    1/50th is just my analogy, with f2.8 and ISO 3200 you can get plenty fast shutter speed under any night market/club lighting. And you don’t need 1/120th for most situations at 85mm, unless you are shooting sports in complete darkness, which I am not sure what the heck you are doing with.

     

  21. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Yes, I know IS is only for handshake. That’s why I said “still life” and not “motion.” Thank you for basically repeating what I said back at me.

     

  22. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    No man, 17mm and 18mm isn’t a big difference, just like 28mm and 24mm aren’t much different. If you want to be pedantic, I can’t stop you. But true ultra wide angle you need 20mm or below for full frame, I use the 17-40mm and I know the difference between 28mm and 24mm, there isn’t much. 17mm to 24mm is a big difference, 24 to 35mm is a big difference. But 24mm and 28mm on full frame shows nothing. I am talking about real world situations, not some sick lab test those ppl do on test charts, duh

     

  23. Antenox

    December 15, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    No, 1/50 is NOT fast enough, because 50mm on a crop is the equivalent of 85mm. It’s not about actual focal length; its about EQUIVALENT focal length. 50mm on an APS-C sensor requires 1/80 AT LEAST. Preferably 1/120 or 1/160 to really stop blur.

    Also, you won’t see any soft corners on the 15-85mm. Dark, yes, but as I said, easily fixable in post if it really is THAT bad (which it isn’t).

     

  24. etx007blue2

    December 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    And FYI, IS only works for handshake, not motion blur. So if the person is shooting landscape, it eliminates handshake and shows a sharp image. But I doubt he needs IS for landscape because he’ll be on the wider end and slow shutter speed won’t matter. If he’s on streets/town and photographing ppl, then the IS won’t help him very much on the longer end because he’ll need the high shutter speed to freeze motion of ppl walking anyways. Let me just repeat, IS doesn’t help motion blur.