# walk around lens



## RGF (Oct 15, 2017)

I am thinking of getting a walk around lens for non-photographic travels. I have Canon's 24-105 but would like to get something that is longer and possibly wider (though I may need two lens). While I tend to favor Canon lenses I think I will need to look to other manufacturer to find what I need.

Any recommendations?

Thanks


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 15, 2017)

Something that is both more wide-angle than 24mm, and more tele than 105mm? There is no such lens for full frame.
If you want to keep small and light, the way is 16-35mm F4 (or 17-40mm F4) and 70-200m F4 (or 70-300mm F4-5.6 USM IS ii.

For APS-C there is the Tamron 16-300mm f / 3.5-6.3, which is not as wide.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 15, 2017)

For me, the great walk-about combo is a 24-70F4 and a 70-200F4IS. The 24-70 also gives some macro capability....

For really wide shots, I tend to take multiple images and stitch together...


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2017)

Yep like it's been said there's no wider. There is the 28-300 for what you're asking except for the focal length part, lol.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 15, 2017)

I gave up carrying the FF gear for casual shooting and got an M5. There are some very good lenses available and, with an adapter, all crop and FF lenses will fit. The added plus is that the camera and a couple lenses fit in my vest pockets.

One of my favorite M lenses is the Canon 11-22mm



Fall Colors Sorensens 2017 1338 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I gave up carrying the FF gear for casual shooting and got an M5. There are some very good lenses available and, with an adapter, all crop and FF lenses will fit. The added plus is that the camera and a couple lenses fit in my vest pockets.
> 
> One of my favorite M lenses is the Canon 11-22mm



+1

I'm on a plane right now, waiting for takeoff. It's a short trip, no planned photography, and the M6 + M11-22 is in my carryon case in the overhead. 

Even on longer trips where I do take the 1D X and several lenses, I still bring the M6 + M11-22 for daytime/opportunistic walkaround shooting.


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > I gave up carrying the FF gear for casual shooting and got an M5. There are some very good lenses available and, with an adapter, all crop and FF lenses will fit. The added plus is that the camera and a couple lenses fit in my vest pockets.
> ...



I agree and have my own way of doing that with the Pen F and the 12-40. There are times I wish I had gone with the M% but it is what it is and I like what I have even though it's not Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 16, 2017)

If you don't mind a Nikon option, they have a 24-120 f/4 VR, but I've heard it's underwhelming optically.

- A


----------



## timmy_650 (Oct 16, 2017)

Tarmon has a 28-300 f3.5-6.3. So it isn't wider but it is longer. There will be a drop in quality compared to the 24-105.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 16, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> For me, the great walk-about combo is a 24-70F4 and a 70-200F4IS. The 24-70 also gives some macro capability....
> 
> For really wide shots, I tend to take multiple images and stitch together...



+1. A 70-200 could be an ultra wide angle depends on how many frames in your panorama  Same as 70-300 or 100-400. Modern software like Photoshop can stitch large multi-row handheld panoramas no prob..

Shot handheld @ 130mm, 3 rows




Handheld @ 70mm, 3 rows


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 16, 2017)

timmy_650 said:


> Tarmon has a 28-300 f3.5-6.3. So it isn't wider but it is longer. There will be a drop in quality compared to the 24-105.


I am tired of carrying two zoom lenses, 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 when in practice I rarely go wider than 35mm or longer than 150mm. Do you know of any zoom lenses that just cover the middle range - say 28-135 or 35-150?
There is the Canon 24-105 but I find that 105mm is often not long enough for the type of pictures I take and I would gladly sacrifice 4mm at the wide end to gain another 15 or 20mm at the telephoto end.
The maximum aperture must be F4 or wider - a lens with a maximum aperture of F6.3 just isn't fast enough.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 16, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I gave up carrying the FF gear for casual shooting and got an M5. There are some very good lenses available and, with an adapter, all crop and FF lenses will fit. The added plus is that the camera and a couple lenses fit in my vest pockets.
> One of my favorite M lenses is the Canon 11-22mm



Same here. My M5 has pretty much replaced my FF DSLR for casual shooting. This weekend I attended a father/son retreat with my two sons. I took my M5 and two lenses (22, 18-150) as well as most of my full frame gear. The FF stuff didn't get touched except for a few sunrise pictures Sunday morning when the boys were still sleeping. I used my M5 for everything with the kids. I was very happy with the images I came home with and the gear didn't get in the way of having fun with the boys.



Jopa said:


> For really wide shots, I tend to take multiple images and stitch together...



Beautiful shots Jopa, I especially like the first one!


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 16, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> timmy_650 said:
> 
> 
> > Tarmon has a 28-300 f3.5-6.3. So it isn't wider but it is longer. There will be a drop in quality compared to the 24-105.
> ...



If you need just another 15-20% why not just crop it? Or put it on an 80D instead of full frame?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 16, 2017)

RGF said:


> I am thinking of getting a walk around lens for *non-photographic travels*.
> 
> Any recommendations?
> 
> Thanks



I think the concept of “non-photographic travel” eludes most on this forum.

The M5 or 6 is a great recommendation, you can have both a wide and long lens and it doesn’t take up much space. Since you appear to have less gear your friends will think you have left the hobby at home for this “non-photographic trip”, little do they know you have found a way to make your addiction less noticeable.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Oct 16, 2017)

You might take a little wider look at your requirements. I got tired of dragging my FF equipment on short trips, so I tried a SL1 with the 10/18 and 55/250 for a while. Adequate results, but not like the FF stuff and usually printed 5x7 or smaller it was perfectly fine. Then my wife said "you need something that fits in your pocket" and gave me a Panasonic ZS100. If fits fine, has a 20mp sensor, a 25-250 leica zoom, electronic viewfinder and the images are at least equal to the SL1.
I'm sure other camera manufacturers provide something similar, but this one's a winner for me.


----------



## Talys (Oct 16, 2017)

The Canon 18-135 nano is a great option, I think. It has a little more FR than the 24-105, especially on APSC, where that last bit is important.

It's not really amazing at either end of its focal range, but no lens exists from any manufacturer, with that kind of focal range, size, weight, and price that is. And speaking of weight, it is quite light, and not very large.

I think that the sharpness, especially at the center, is very good.

On the downside, it is a STM motor is focus by wire and massively annoying if you like to manually focus (it has the stupid thing where if you turn slowly, it changes by a different step than if you turn the ring quickly). Also, you need power to MF. On the upside, it is ridiculously lightning fast to autofocus -- I think it's faster autofocus than any of my L lenses, and also, totally silent, making it also great for video, if that matters.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 16, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> timmy_650 said:
> 
> 
> > Tarmon has a 28-300 f3.5-6.3. So it isn't wider but it is longer. There will be a drop in quality compared to the 24-105.
> ...



There's an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, if you're willing to compromise on one f/stop.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 16, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> There's an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, if you're willing to compromise on one f/stop.



It would appear between all the 18-135 crop, 28-135 / 28-300 FF options that Canon has learned that long standard zooms are easy... providing you don't want wider than 28mm FF. That's apparently where the wheels come off the bus optically.

If 24mm FF is an absolute must for you, I think you need to get the EF-S 15-85 and be done with it. But if not, and if you can live with 28-long FF, you have options in both FF and crop. I'm going to wince as I say the 18-135 IS nano USM is _probably_ the pick of the bunch there, but others may feel differently and recommend the 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM.

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 17, 2017)

Think about how you're actually shooting when you "walk around". If by "walk around" you mean "walking up a mountain trail and shooting huge vistas and wildlife on the way" then sure, you're going to want a lot of range and you're probably going to want at least two lenses. But if by "walk around" you mean "walking around the middle of a town with my family" then you'd most likely be better off with something like a single, light prime lens.

If you really do think you're in that first camp, the big two lenses to pair up are the 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS. They have near-identical rendering so you get a consistent look, the gap between 35-70 isn't really all that significant in real world terms, and you've got a lot of range to play with there. They're also both nicely sealed while being just a little bit easier to carry around than the f/2.8 equivalents.
The 17-40 and 70-300 L lenses are a step down in quality but they're cheaper and you get a little more long end. There's also an old 28-300 L which is pretty outdated but not really that different in performance from the 24-105 mk I, so if you wish the 24-105 mk I simply had more long-end range, that's worth looking at. Of course there is the 100-400mm but unless you're seriously into wildlife, that's going to be overkill. (And if you were, the 400mm f/5.6 is a much easier lens to "walk around" with.)

... But those really are all a bit much for "walk around", even for longer and more exploratory trips. If your idea of "walk around" means "I need to capture _everything no matter what_" then hey, there you go.

If you're more in the latter group and you're doing what more people mean by simply "walk around" then your existing 24-105 is basically as good as it gets. You could spend a little money to switch it for the Sigma 24-105, which is a little sharper, but that's really about it in terms of zoom lenses; everything else which has more range is slower and optically worse, and everything which is faster and/or optically better is more limited and also much heavier and bulkier.

If 24mm isn't wide enough for you and 105mm isn't long enough for you, and you did want to keep bulk down to a minimum, I'd say look for a 20mm prime—there are several around—and a 135mm. Then you're missing out the middle, but if the range is what bothers you then I'm guessing the middle focal lengths aren't too important for you anyway. You could add something like the 40mm STM to fill out that middle range without really adding much weight. But swapping between three primes doesn't really fit the idea of a simple "walk around" solution.


I'd highly recommend you consider, if you're not happy with the 24-105, simply swapping for a basic middle prime. The Tamron 45mm VC, for example, is basically the best all-rounder money can buy at the moment; nearly perfectly 'standard' field of view, excessive weather sealing, and stabilisation. You can stitch a panorama when you want a really wide shot, and how often are you really using the long end of your 24-105, let alone wanting something longer, when you're casually shooting? Working with a single prime isn't for everyone, but it's always something to keep in mind; it's way too easy to think you need to have everything covered, so you load up on gear for every specific purpose and then never really get any pictures because taking everything with you is too much hassle. Sometimes simpler is actually more versatile.

Also, another thing to consider is to ditch Canon. Keep it for your 'real' shooting, by all means, but for "walk around" a lot of people are switching to smaller mirrorless systems and getting great results. Fuji, Sony, and Olympus are dominating the "walk around" market right now, for good reason. (Panasonic are in there too, to a much lesser degree.) They've basically taken over street shooting and event shooting is now pretty 50:50 between the people still lugging SLRs around and those who have switched to smaller systems, and that ratio is only shifting more and more in favour of the mirrorless units. 
An extra benefit of picking up one of these systems is they're generally a bit cheaper than their SLR equivalents, so if a small combination gets lost, stolen, or broken in your travels it's not such a big deal, and even a fuller kit is cheaper to insure than an equivalent SLR kit. 


Have a hard think about what it is you really _use_, what it is you really _need_, what you can actually be bothered to carry with you, and the most efficient way to balance that. How often do you find yourself wanting to shoot wider than 24mm and where stitching isn't an option? How often do you find yourself needing to go in more than 105mm and where cropping wouldn't be enough? How much weight and size are you really prepared to put up with? How high of a total equipment value are you prepared to carry?




ahsanford said:


> It would appear between all the 18-135 crop, 28-135 / 28-300 FF options that Canon has learned that long standard zooms are easy... providing you don't want wider than 28mm FF. That's apparently where the wheels come off the bus optically.


It's not really to do with the optics taking a dip per se, but more that keeping the optical quality high while going much wider than 28mm/equivalent (with zooms that have a long end; obviously, wide-angle zooms are a whole 'nother story) is very _expensive_. It all goes back to the days of analogue where 28mm was a much more commonly-wanted focal length, before it got kind of replaced by 24mm toward the end of the 1980s. Every company (and every factory) is geared up to do 28mm (again, we're talking about for standard zooms here) really well, but anything more is a stretch further and further into unknown territory, as far as zooms go. Obviously 24mm has become quite normal, but even then you're mostly seeing 24-xxx zooms only either as premium ranges or with significant compromises.
Same reason every company keeps making 50mm primes and very few make anything closer to 40. Same way we still have rubbish LCDs on the tops of cameras with <3.2" rear screens, and not nice OLEDs and bigger screens like every other device. It's what the factories happened to start out with, so it just kinda sticks, and deviating from that will always cost a premium and stretch the designers' knowledge. If enough companies did it then these things would eventually become totally common and we could have 24-135 or 20-150 or who knows, but no one company wants to be the one to take the hit by being first.


----------

