What's your favourite "walk-around" lens for a crop camera ??

[Arg]

One reason the 17-55 f2.8 is my favourite walkaround on my 7D is the fantastic bright viewfinder when combining the fast zoom with the 7D's very good viewfinder.

[whytebate]

I've bought a 17-55 in November & it is now my absolute favourite lens! I debated this one vs the 24-70, but in the long run really am happy with the decision. I know if I do choose to upgrade to FF, I'll still have a second body, so good quality lenses on a crop camera backup.

THE dollar is sooo storng right now - if I were you I'd be looking to buy out of the states - B&H are pretty good. I've ordered from them before.

[jjphoto]

I tend to pick a lens (a prime, not zoom) and just use that for the day, and not worry about shot's I've missed because I had the 'wrong' lens. It's a great way to learn the quirks of a lens too, they all have their pro's and cons, things they do well and things they don't. Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed. Zooms are the best way to work quickly.

My favourite lens for a crop camera is actually a Leica Elmarit-R 24/2.8 with an adapter to fit it to a Canon. It's a beutiful lens, saturated colours, great sharpness and nice bokeh, but I don't use it often anymore as I've kind of gone away from crop bodies.

JJ

[mitgonk]

I've decided on getting the 17-55...after much internet research...and comparison in the shops...I reckon it's just right for what I need it for.

definately won't be disappointed! I hardly ever take my 17-55 off my 7d!

[Arg]

I tend to pick a lens (a prime, not zoom) .... Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed. Zooms are the best way to work quickly....

The best modern zooms tend to be excellent at everything. The old truths about old zooms are dead, and can only exist in the modern world as myths.

[jjphoto]

The best modern zooms tend to be excellent at everything. The old truths about old zooms are dead, and can only exist in the modern world as myths.

I think you're the only one creating myths here. I've never suggested that modern zooms are in any way inadequate, just that they can be bettered with primes. Are you saying this isn't true?

When I work I generally use 3 zooms only, because they do what they are supposed to and they do the job well. It's also the reason 'pro' zooms cost a lot of money, that is, they are made to very high standards.

However, it would be fairly easy, although expensive, to find 'better' performing fixed focal length lenses at every focal length equivalent to virtually any zoom (there would be very few exceptions, such as the Zeiss or Cooke cine zooms, but they cost more than most peoples cars). Zoom lenses always have to compromise somewhere whilst a prime can be best at what it's suppsoed to do. Not to mention that primes are also generally faster too.

Of course it would be relatively obsurd to carry 5 lenses whilst a single zoom could do the same job almost as well, and better in terms of speed of use. Take an example of a Canon 17-40/4 L, which is quite an inexpensive lens but which performs extremely well. This is an excellent lens that is actually quite hard to better with primes (in terms of sharpness). It's probably better than many promes in terms of flare control, but that's another issue. To better this lens you would probabaly need the following;

Olympus 18mm
Contax 21/2.8 (or Zeiss 21)
Contax 25/2.8 MM, maybe Olympus 24/2.8 or 24/2.0, Nikon 24/2.8
Leica R 28/2.8 (V2) or Contax 28/2.8 MM
Contax 35/1.4, Leica R 35/1.4
Olympus 40/2.0

Again, modern zooms are excellent, no question, but they can always bettered.

JJ

[Luwii]

removed

[Arg]

I think you're the only one creating myths here. I've never suggested that modern zooms are in any way inadequate, just that they can be bettered with primes. <snip>

Well, jj, you have changed the topic from your previous post. I'll stick to my original topic, that you raised, and I quote you here, "Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed.".

My comment on that stands. Modern zooms are IMHO excellent, not mediocre.

Also an interesting quote from Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, vol 3, 2009:

"I’ve talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses, there is no visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes."

[Bennymiata]

It's interesting to read what you guys are saying about zooms -v- primes.
I use both, and I haven't noticed a huge difference between them as far as sharpness or colour rendition is concerned.
However, generally speaking, primes are more expensive than zooms (for similar quality and reach), but zooms still sell more units than primes as they are more useful.
And I guess that is part of the reason primes are more expensive than zooms, is that they make a lot less of them, so their tooling and development costs have to be borne from fewer units.
The same goes for zooms too.
It isn't always true that if you pay more, the quaity must be better as many of the more popular Canon zooms are IMHO, very good value for money.
Take the 24-105L lens for example.
Compared to the 17-40L or the 24-70L, neither of which have IS, the 24-105 is pretty close on price, gives more reach and while it may be one stop slower than the 24-70, it has IS built in and this is worth a few hundred dollars onits own.
I think the reason it is so well priced is because it is so popular and so the initial costs can be divided by larger production numbers.
In the comparisons I've read, the 24-105 has virtually the same sharpness as the other 2 zooms, yet offers better value for money IMHO.

The same goes with primes with the exception of the 50mm 1.8 that sells by the squillions and is a very cheap lens to make, but look at the 1.4 version or the 1.2 and the price goes up considerably.
For the price of the 50mm 1.2, you could buy a couple of very good zoom lenses for the same money, and I doubt most of us could tell if the picture from the 50mm 1.2 is really THAT much better. Compared to many other lenses, it certainly isn't value for money.

Getting back on track, my favourite walk-around lens in the Canon 24-105L.

[Dwarak]

From one 7d user to another I love the 24-105 great lens very sharp good saturation as you would expect from a pro lens. I would not bother with primes to be used as a general purpose lens.

[James Axford]

50mm f1.2 for me, I think people who have actually used it can understand how good it really is. people who haven't can't.
ive got some good keepers from it. Many more than I would from my zooms.
I'll stick with my over priced prime thank you very much.

[jjphoto]

Well, jj, you have changed the topic from your previous post. I'll stick to my original topic, that you raised, and I quote you here, "Zooms tend to be mediocre at everything, except speed.".

My comment on that stands. Modern zooms are IMHO excellent, not mediocre.

Also an interesting quote from Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, vol 3, 2009:

"I’ve talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses, there is no visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes."

Okeydokey!

JJ

[jjphoto]

...For the price of the 50mm 1.2, you could buy a couple of very good zoom lenses for the same money, and I doubt most of us could tell if the picture from the 50mm 1.2 is really THAT much better. Compared to many other lenses, it certainly isn't value for money.
...

You can't create an image with ANY zoom that you can create with a 50/1.2 lens at F1.2-F2 as zooms simply do not exist with that aperture. So you WOULD see the difference!

Bear in mind also that most people buy such a lens to use it wide open, or close to it. It's difficult and expensive to make a lens that performs at a very high level at such apertures. The concept of 'value for money' isn't really relevant once you start trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance. You might pay 2-5 times as much to go to the next level again.

JJ

[smylie]

I have the 24-70mm on the 1D Mk111 as a walk around. Thought long and hard about the 24-105mm but decided on the 24-70. Since you have the 10-22, nice wide angle, and the 70-200, wonderful sharp zoom (my favorite lens), it seems logical that you would go for the 24-105 to fill the gap and give you a good range and an excellent lens as a walk around.

[gerry]

Also an interesting quote from Scott Kelby's The Digital Photography Book, vol 3, 2009:

"I’ve talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves, and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses, there is no visible sharpness difference between zooms and primes."

one thing to remember is the quality of a lens is not purely judged by how sharp it is, there ather factors involved, for example contrast, this is one area where some primes really excel.

[mitgonk]

fast zooms... only for 4/3rd's systems...

http://www.olympus.com.au/component/...ail/Itemid,69/

[Bennymiata]

You can't create an image with ANY zoom that you can create with a 50/1.2 lens at F1.2-F2 as zooms simply do not exist with that aperture. So you WOULD see the difference!

Bear in mind also that most people buy such a lens to use it wide open, or close to it. It's difficult and expensive to make a lens that performs at a very high level at such apertures. The concept of 'value for money' isn't really relevant once you start trying to squeeze every last ounce of performance. You might pay 2-5 times as much to go to the next level again.

JJ

I do agree with you JJ, but for someone on a limited budget and wanting a walk-around lens, I didn't think that an expensive, fast prime lens is what he's looking for.
After all, a good walk-around lens needs to be a jack-of-all trades as you never know what you will come up against!
I also have 3 different fast primes, and wanting more, but I don't use them as a walk-around lens but use them more as specialty lenses where i really need their quality or some other atribute they may have.

Sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to.

[KeeFy]

Primes > Zoom in respoect of Aperture. That's is the only difference these days. And most of the time you always want to go faster for that wonderful shot. I use a 50 1.8 for 2 months as a walk around. It really boils down to your style of shooting and what in the world you want to shoot.

[jjphoto]

Primes > Zoom in respoect of Aperture. That's is the only difference these days....oot.

That's acyually not true, at least with respect to wide angle zooms lenses, but some of the tele zooms are about as good as lenses get.

The wide zooms tend to have trouble with sharpness in the corners which landscape shooters can't always cope with so often a prime is the only solution. I use my 24-70 for about 90% of my (paid) work and it is an amazing lens but it does fall short at the wide end and in the corners. Same for the 17-40 L.

JJ

[petercee]

Agree with jjphoto, especially regarding the challenging and educational aspects of using a prime lens and having no alternative lens when you're out.
People who choose a non-L over an L may one day be in for a surprise. In my experience "L" lenses justify their investment. I get serious enjoyment from my photography, so a few hundred dollars here and there do not get in the way of a lens that will be useful for decades.