setting a walkaround zoom (mostly for SLR)

setting a walkaround zoom (mostly for SLR)

  • Wider than 24mm

    Votes: 18 25.0%
  • 24 mm wide

    Votes: 35 48.6%
  • 28 mm wide

    Votes: 11 15.3%
  • 35 mm wide

    Votes: 13 18.1%
  • 70-90 range tele

    Votes: 25 34.7%
  • 90-135 range tele

    Votes: 13 18.1%
  • over 135 mm

    Votes: 9 12.5%
  • F/2

    Votes: 35 48.6%
  • F/2.8

    Votes: 26 36.1%
  • F/4

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • F/2.8-4

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • F/3.5-4.5 or slower

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Total voters
    72

italy74

Well-known
Local time
5:30 AM
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
804
Location
Northern Italy
Hi guys
which could be your ideal (reasonable) zoom range to keep in one lens?
You can set both wide and long end as well as aperture
Let's see what comes out..


* LATER EDIT TO BE CLEAR: here I mean lenses for FF (film cameras) or FF-EQUIVALENT, NOT DX *
 
Last edited:
28-85/2.8 constant would be nice - a decent balance between physics and portability. I find that 2.8 is a good speed for a walkabout lens - even slower can be ok if the rest of the tradeoffs (light/good image quality) are there.

William
 
I find 24mm to be a most useful focal length -- while 28mm is great, having the extra width would really be ideal. Something in the 90-135 range would be the most useful long end. I voted for f2.8; while f2 would be wonderful, I think based on current lens technology that would make for a very big and heavy lens. (But if the idea is that this is a dream lens, then certainly, a compact 24-135/f2 would be fantastic.)
 
I already got mine: a Nikon AF 24-120. I only wish it were faster, but it seems that's impossible. However, sometimes I switch it for my Sigma 24-70, which is f2.8 but heavier.
 
Actually, I have three in mind, all equally good:

- 22-55 F/2 + 90-135 F/2 - compactness and optical excellence by means of short ranges to fit

- 24-90 F/2.8 - one 2.8 zoom

- 24-135 F/4 - same as above but probably more compact due to F/4

swm and VR would be nice, especially on the latest two.
 
I can't believe the number of people wanting an F2 zoom with the F2.8 variety already at the edge of too heavy to bother carrying around.

Bob
 
About 5 years ago I was anticipating a trip to Germany to visit my daughter. I wanted a kit that would cover what I thought I used most, and be as compact as possible. I already had a Yashica FX103, a Yashica FX3 (for battery-less backup), and a Contax 50mm f/1.4. I had the dedicated flash. I also had a Welta Weltax for MF. That was the start of my kit.

I decided on three zoom lenses. For a telephoto, I had a Yashica 75-150mm f/4. Light, covers a useful amount of focal lengths, and since I anticipated it would usually be used in daylight, f/4 is fine. I believe 75-150 is a good telephoto range. My type of photography, I don't need to reach out to the moon as a rule. I seldom use my 300mm, 500mm, or long zooms, even the 80-200mm zooms. YMMV. In the unlikely event I wanted to reach out further, I had a 2X extender. Yashica lenses are respectable lenses to use. I have the feeling the old M42 lenses might be better, but the bayonet versions are still good.

For in between, a Vivitar 28-70mm macro, f/3.5-4.8. Again, useful focal lengths, macro, a little slow, but not so much worse than the others. This is a fairly compact lens for what it does. I don't use macro much on outings, but it was there if I wanted. 28-70mm is a very useful focal length range. Wide at 28mm, and mild telephoto at 70mm. 70mm is a good enough portrait focal length. Vivitar may not be the best lens line out there these days, but it isn't a holga either.

Lastly, a Samyang 18-28mm f/4. That was the most desired focal length to cover for me, but a Samyang was questionable in my mind. 18-28mm lets you get a lot of village scenes of narrow streets and/or markets. I have never been to europe, much less Germany, but I anticipated wanting a lot of photos like that. The Samyang turned out to be much better than you might expect. It is a little large, and makes some noise when shaken. But it is surprisingly sharp.

As I mentioned, I had the Contax 50 f/1.4 also. For really low light, or if the sharpest lens I had was important, it was there. The dedicated flash would take guesswork out of flash work when wanted, with the otf it utilizes. I took my Gossen Luna Pro since it is reasonably small and very accurate if everything else failed, or to use with the Welta Weltax I took along for MF shots. All that fit in a small bag, but was still very accessable. I was surprised.

I never made the trip, but it has remained a useful kit nonetheless. Two good cameras that are somewhat compact. Focal lengths from 18mm to 150mm. If I want MF, the Welta Weltax (a folder) delivers good MF photos. Sorry for the long post, but it was my solution, and I thought it useful to explain my choices.
 
Last edited:
You don't say if it's for the cropped sensor of the full size sensor. Assuming full frame, I'd ask for 21-135, f2.0 (constant aperture), NO distortion in a package about the size of a standard 50mm f2.0. Well, you said, "ideal".
 
Hi Pablito,
just answered above, I meant FF-wise range, not DX, since most of us here still have a film camera or reason depending on the equivalent FF focal lenghts.
I agree with Bob that setting a huge F/2 zoom wouldn't solve our problems rather create more. If you see, I kept those F/2 ranges very short to let them behave really like a "prime". 75-150 would be a very good range too and for a more general use I agree with F/4. I thought at F/2 due mostly to portraits.
 
Last edited:
I have a Sigma 28-70/2.8 in OM mount, just about the most "useful" lens I own. Good enough for just about everything I need it to do, and it was relatively inexpensive. Excellent kit when coupled with a the Tamron 80-200/2.8. Not much those two lenses can't do.

The problem is that I rarely have time to do anything photographic anymore.
 
I used to carry a 24-70L 2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8 with IS for my 5D which has the grip and an L plate attached around with me, this was way to heavy so I settled on a 24-105L which is f/4 and has IS and a 100-300 (not L) which is f/4.5-5.6 and has IS.

This is easier to carry and fits in a Billingham 445 with a 580EX-II (difuser attached) and a 50/1.2 with room to spare for other stuff.

When I use the 5D for other things than snapshots it's the 35,50,85,135 and 200 L primes that I use. This is rare though.

It will be a cold day in hell before I buy another zoom.


//Jan
 
What the poll is saying at the moment is, voters seem to want a 24-90mm f2 lens.

Has anyone stopped to think about the size and weight of such a lens, let alone the cost. On top of that, the aberrations would be terrible.

I've only got one zoom lens, a Leica 35-70 f4. The zoom range and maximum aperture are very conservative for good reason.
 
Yep, it'd be huge & heavy. No doubt. Still want one - I just don't want to obey the laws of physics to get it.

<G, D & R>

William
 
A 35-70/2.8 is about the maximum size/weight (670grams) I can carry around.. Factor in a camera at about the same weight, and you've got something that's decidedly 'present' hanging around your neck..
 
I'm with Pablito in looking at the ideal, an f/2 zoom of useful range like 14-100mm (on a crop-sensor body), with no distortion, and only about 50mm long, maybe 400g in weight. Otherwise I've just not been eager to accept the compromises of a zoom so have preferred primes. With a digital body my thinking changes in favor of a single zoom to avoid dust-introducing lens swaps. For that I use a 20-35mm SMC Pentax zoom, and yeah it's f/4 slow but at least it's compact and a useful though modest range. I'd rarely need anything longer than 50mm anyway.
 
The big drawback of any zoom, as far as I am concerned, is that there is always a terrible temptation to waste time zooming -- time in which you can lose the shot.

I also find that I often tend to use a zoom at one extreme or the other, rather than in between.

Third, zooms are slow: I've never owned one faster than f/2.8, and indeed, I don't think there are many (any?) that are faster than f/2.8 at all apertures (any apertures?).

As a result, I'd suggest that what I have right now is the perfect 'zoom': one body with 35/1.4 and the other with 75/2.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Joking aside...
anyone here would be able to approximate a real size for the lens above mentioned, a 24-90 F/2 ? (or also a F/2.8 and a F/4 by comparison)?

Oh.. by the way... if not a 22-55 F/2 also a 25-50 F/2 or at worst a 28-50 F/2 would be fine too.. 😉
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom