What's your favorite all-purpose lens?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by dickr2, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. dickr2

    dickr2 Guest

    You're going out for the day, maybe just to walk around, visit
    friends, etc., and you don't want to carry a camera bag with a
    bunch of lenses. What would be your favorite lens?
    Mine would be an old Vivitar Series 1 28-90, 2.8-3.5 that I use
    on my Canon FD bodies. Close focus to 9", sharp glass.
    It has served me well for the last 20 years.
    How about you?

    Dick
     
    dickr2, Nov 29, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. dickr2

    Eric Stevens Guest

    AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (5.3x)

    It's a big lump of glass but then the D300 is not a small camera.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. My 24-105 is the default lens for my Canon 5D. I tend to put longer
    lenses on my 50D.
    Also, I found a LowePro bag that just fits same with lens hood in place,
    so I keep it ready to go that way.
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 29, 2010
    #3
  4. dickr2

    K W Hart Guest

    Since I own at least one of every Canon lens made for the Canon FX
    (1964-69), selection would be tough. Last summer I went 'cross country to
    visit family and took about 12 camera bodies and 30 lenses.
    For general purposes, I would take either the 55-135mm or the 85-310mm zoom
    lenses. The smaller zoom is just slightly larger than two normal lenses and
    fairly lightweight. The larger zoom is big- about 15" long by about 4"
    diameter- and heavy- maybe ten pounds- but it's size actually makes it easy
    to handhold.
    The one lens that I would not select on a whim is the 1200mm. At 40" long
    and about 30 pounds weight, it's not really a walk-around lens!
     
    K W Hart, Nov 29, 2010
    #4
  5. Canon FD 35-105 that came with my Canon A-1, which is where it lives
    most of the time.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Nov 30, 2010
    #5
  6. Second the Voigtlander 40mm. It's on my D700 at the moment, and I'm
    about to take it for a walk. I oscillate between that one and my ZF2
    85mm, which is great for taking photos of elements (as well as portraits
    at so on.) The ZF85 is much larger, though, so I don't carry it around
    in a pocket, either.
    I don't like my only zoom (24-120 that I got on the camera.) Perhaps one
    day I'll find one I do like...

    Cheers,
     
    Andrew Reilly, Nov 30, 2010
    #6
  7. dickr2

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You should look at the 16-85. I find the increased angle of 16
    compared to 18 is well worth having.


    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Hmmmm---- What was the question??
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 1, 2010
    #8
  9. dickr2

    dickr2 Guest

     
    dickr2, Dec 1, 2010
    #9
  10. dickr2

    Walter Banks Guest

    I spend a lot of time with a 70-300mm on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR. When I travel I usually add a 50mm/F2.0. It is not wide enough for many shots.

    w..


    Some of teh new super zooms are getting very nice.
     
    Walter Banks, Dec 1, 2010
    #10
  11. dickr2

    dickr2 Guest

    Wow! 12 camera bodies and 30 lenses. Doesn't that get get a little "confussing"
    when you're trying to figure what body and what lens you need to get that
    quick once in a lifetime shot?
    I don't mean to criticize, I'm just curious.
    :)
    Dick
     
    dickr2, Dec 1, 2010
    #11
  12. It was a bit T.I.C. that Alan and Paul listed gear and thus missed
    answering the Q, which is also in the Subject Line....it may be also
    that they have no favorite, or are just bragging about their stuff.... :)
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 1, 2010
    #12
  13. Well, you ultimately did give an answer, though for you it's a
    hypothetical, apparently.
    Stop copying me!!

    :)
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 1, 2010
    #13
  14. dickr2

    Eric Stevens Guest

    In my 35mm days a 28mm lens was adequate but I felt I entered another
    world when I first managed to find a good 24mm. While he difference
    doesn't sound much there is a considerable difference in what it sees.
    On the D300, going from 18mm to 16mm had much the same effect. I'm
    astonished at how many of my general photographs are taken at the
    shortest focal length.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 2, 2010
    #14
  15. dickr2

    Ollie Clark Guest

    I don't think I've ever taken my camera anywhere without both
    my lenses but if I was forced to choose one then it'd be the
    Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, probably. It's smaller and
    lighter than the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and has a
    more useful zoom range if I'm going to be indoors at all.

    Cheers,

    Ollie
     
    Ollie Clark, Dec 2, 2010
    #15
  16. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    My fav all-rounder is similar to yours - a Tamron SP 28-80, fitted on
    the P/KA mount which gives my Pentax aperture control of the lens.
    Other than that, the Pentax kit lens isn't a slouch.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Dec 4, 2010
    #16
  17. dickr2

    Robert Coe Guest

    : K W Hart wrote:
    : > : >
    : >>You're going out for the day, maybe just to walk around, visit
    : >>friends, etc., and you don't want to carry a camera bag with a
    : >>bunch of lenses. What would be your favorite lens?
    : >>Mine would be an old Vivitar Series 1 28-90, 2.8-3.5 that I use
    : >>on my Canon FD bodies. Close focus to 9", sharp glass.
    : >>It has served me well for the last 20 years.
    : >>How about you?
    : >>
    : >>Dick
    : >
    : > Since I own at least one of every Canon lens made for the Canon FX
    : > (1964-69), selection would be tough. Last summer I went 'cross country to
    : > visit family and took about 12 camera bodies and 30 lenses.
    : > For general purposes, I would take either the 55-135mm or the 85-310mm zoom
    : > lenses. The smaller zoom is just slightly larger than two normal lenses and
    : > fairly lightweight. The larger zoom is big- about 15" long by about 4"
    : > diameter- and heavy- maybe ten pounds- but it's size actually makes it easy
    : > to handhold.
    : > The one lens that I would not select on a whim is the 1200mm. At 40" long
    : > and about 30 pounds weight, it's not really a walk-around lens!
    : >
    : Wow! 12 camera bodies and 30 lenses. Doesn't that get get a little "confussing"
    : when you're trying to figure what body and what lens you need to get that
    : quick once in a lifetime shot?
    : I don't mean to criticize, I'm just curious.

    So am I! My wife and I just spent a week visiting our daughter and her family.
    I had us take along five bodies and nine or ten lenses, and I frankly thought
    I was nuts. IIRC, we used exactly two of the bodies and two of the lenses.
    (Well, maybe three of the lenses; my wife may have taken a couple of shots
    with her macro lens.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 5, 2010
    #17
  18. dickr2

    K W Hart Guest

    Over the years, I developed the ability to "see" what the camera will see.
    When I look at a scene, I can visualize frame lines for various focal length
    lenses. I also take into consideration perspective and depth of focus. If
    I'm shooting a portrait, I automatically switch to a lens in the 100-135mm
    range. If the scene is dark, I switch to a bright lens. And just for fun,
    once in a while, I mount the 800 or 1200mm lens to see if there is anything
    in the scene that I haven't noticed.

    As for multiple bodies, I do that to avoid reloading film. When you have
    nearly 400 camera bodies, all Canon FX's, you don't need to reload very
    often.

    Ken Hart
     
    K W Hart, Dec 5, 2010
    #18
  19. dickr2

    K W Hart Guest

    (a) There is no such thing as a "very fine digital camera". Show me a
    digital camera that's been used for over 40 years and still works.
    (b) You said it yourself: "_nearly_ the same quality you can get out of
    film". "Nearly" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
    (c) Actually, I could have several ASA (ISO) speeds loaded at the same time-
    it's just a matter of selecting the camera body with the film I want to
    shoot.
    (d) Generally I shoot 24 exposure rolls, but that's minor.

    What do you do with those digital images after shooting? Do you save them on
    your home computer's hard drive? Ever had a hard drive fail- it ain't fun.
    Or maybe you burn them onto a CD or DVD? Remember 8" floppies- sure wish I
    could find a drive to read those disks. Someday, the same problem will exist
    for CD and DVD. On the other hand, those negs I shot 30+ years ago can
    still be printed in my darkroom, along with the couple of glass plate negs I
    have that are over a hundred years old.

    And how about printing those photos? I've had film printed by a scanning
    system, such as that found in your typical one-hour processor. I've printed
    the same negs optically. The comparison is remarkable. What about the life
    of the finished photos? Kodak's Endura paper has a rated life of 200 years.

    Then there's shooting style. I've worked with digital shooters, and they
    tend to 'machine gun'. The theory seems to be that if you take enough
    photos, maybe one or two will be keepers. Personnally I'd prefer to think a
    bit about what I'm photographing to make sure that more of my photos are
    good.

    Some would consider me a luddite for stubbornly staying with film
    technology. I prefer to think of myself as a traditionalist.
     
    K W Hart, Dec 6, 2010
    #19
  20. You just might be able to find them.

    I was unable to locate any with a quick search; however, I'd be
    surprised if they weren't available on eBay or from some other vendor.

    And I don't write this out of some kind of irony or retro snarkiness. I
    used to work for two different companies that at one time sold 8"
    diskette systems for PCs--lots of them. The amazing thing was how late
    in the game these old beasts were still available. Despite the
    conventional wisdom in the computer industry in the early 1990s that
    8-inch floppies were deader than a doornail, they were still available
    and being used long past then.

    I also remember how nearly indestructible those suckers were. At one
    place I worked, we needed to create a damaged disk to test our drive
    systems's error handling. Sounds easy, right? Well, we took one, put it
    on the carpet and rolled and office chair over it a bunch of times.
    Nope, still completely readable. It finally took some serious mutilation
    to get an unreadable disk. Those things were like Rasputin.

    Now if only there was a gigabyte 8" floppy disk ...


    --
    How To Access Wikileaks

    These sites are still up as of 12/3/10:

    http://wikileaks.de
    http://wikileaks.fi
    http://wikileaks.nl
    http://wikileaks.eu
    http://wikileaks.pl

    And these IP addresses can be used:

    http://213.251.145.96/
    http://88.80.13.160/
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 6, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.