Best all around quality lens?

[JoeW]

I'd go with the 24-70mm f2.8. It's perfect for portraits, for street photography and shooting indoors without speed lights in poor ambient light. Yeah, it's not going to be as wide as you'll need in some cases--that's what your phone is for. And yeah, you aren't going to be able to shoot that falcon without bringing your 600mm. Look, you want to travel light. And you don't want to be swapping lens. Go for the 24-70. Yes, there will be some shots you won't be able to get. But the solution to that problem is: bring 3 lens! Which you don't want to do.

So live with the decision--you want to travel light, that means leaving some glass at home. And trying to find a lens that "does it all" means you're going to sacrifice some sharpness probably.

 

[RVT1K]

I've always been of the "Bring it all" camp. I feel that I would rather lug my stuff around, since I really won't remember the pain, as opposed to missing a shot that I would have wanted, which will always bug me.

 

[Braineack]

I've always been of the "Bring it all" camp. I feel that I would rather lug my stuff around, since I really won't remember the pain, as opposed to missing a shot that I would have wanted, which will always bug me.

You're travelling, and most likely with family, and pickpockets.

"Bring it all," is not an option for me -- especially when I pack light as to not have to check luggage. Equipment is heavy and takes up space -- it could cost you extra $$ when flying, and if you don't check it in, takes away your carry-on. It's a pain in the ass to lug around everywhere and you constantly have to keep tabs on it, else it will be disappeared.

If you were travelling just for photography, sure go crazy. I also do research and pick wisely. Last year when I went to Greece, I brought my d800, 24-70, and 70-200. I used the 70-200 once in a week and a half, yet had to lug it around everywhere with me [although I was able to bang decent stray cat shots with it]. I brought it because I thought there would be an opportunity for it at one of our locations and that really didn't pan out. I have brought it to other locations, typically when I go to a zoo, and it's worth it.

But I have also obtained specific equipment just to travel with and been perfectly happy.

One of my favorite buys was a Platypod knock-off for $20, and a very inexpensive ball-head ~$10, and then a $100 ND filter. This allowed me to get a few long-exposure shots off the shores and fit within my bag without adding too much extra weight (although that hunk of aluminum isn't light).


IMG_20180602_064806 by Braineack, on Flickr


DSC_9796 by Braineack, on Flickr


IMG_20180530_202823 by Braineack, on Flickr


DSC_9700 by Braineack, on Flickr


Another trip I bought an a6000 to travel with and was able to keep it around my neck or in my pocket the entire trip.

The reason I mentioned the 28-105mm is that it is small, light, cheap, and performs well. While my 24-70 serves me perfectly well, it is heavy and I just wish it had a touch more reach to be a bit more versatile. It's also expensive and would be a bigger hit if it was damaged or stolen vs a $100 lens. I'll gladly make some compromises in IQ or DOF, to gain versatility and reduce headache [and shoulder-ache].

And again like I mentioned above, you're travelling. All these shots are going to be pretty opportunistic, so again, think about what you actually need.

The reason I, again, mentioned wider than 24mm, is because that's where I've found I've need range.

this is at 24mm [16mm APS-C]:

DSC02705 by Braineack, on Flickr

Not quite wide enough from where I was standing. while here is a 9-image stitch:


DSC02693_stitch by Braineack, on Flickr

again here, at 16mm vs a stitch:


DSC02820 by Braineack, on Flickr


DSC02823_stitch by Braineack, on Flickr

When I go back and look at all my travel stuff, if anything I've needed wider than 24mm on plently of occasions, and rarely much longer than 70mm. YMMV.

My next trip will be two weeks and there will be a lot of air-travel between locations -- this has led me down the path of acquiring another pocket camera so I don't have to deal with all the excess.

 

[Eric Uberseder]

Sigma’s 24-105 stabilized Art beats or equals Canon’s “L”. of the same dimensions for 1/2 the price. I got mine in Like new condition from KEH. It does everything from wide angle to mid tele for a FF camera. I would not recommend is its focal lengths for a Crop Frame.

 

[Braineack]

Same size as my 24-70; nice.

 

[Lightsped]

The trip that is coming up is London. Enjoy going to Hyde Park and shooting the various birds in and around that area. That could be the only place I would use the 70-200.

Probably the best thing to do is to take both 24-70 and 70-200 but I am always nervous about leaving glass behind in hotels..... The 24-70 will be used most of the time.

 

[Solarflare]

I would opt for the 24-120 f4.

Sadly I have to disagree; this lens seems to be especially phrone to model variance.

If you get a good copy, sure.

Otherwise I'd rather pick the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR

 

[Designer]

The AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4/5 VR is my go-to lens for everyday shooting. It is almost always on my camera. If you are contemplating the purchase of a walk-around lens for travel, you should consider that one. I bought mine used for about $400.

 

[AQS]

If you're using an APS-C DSLR, this is kind of an interesting video:

 

[Braineack]

Did the guy who doesn't take pictures, and makes the lowest 1985 era quality videos, recommend a Fuji lens for the D500?

 

[AQS]

Did the guy who doesn't take pictures, and makes the lowest 1985 era quality videos, recommend a Fuji lens for the D500?

Did you actually watch the video? Seems unlikely as you replied 6 minutes after my post, and the video runs 12 minutes.

 

[Braineack]

I don't watch trash.

 

[AQS]

I don't watch trash.

Thanks for confirming. I hope you enjoy remaining ignorant then.

 

[Derrel]

His blanket recommendation of the 60mm f2.8 micro was a bit unsettling to me. I have owned one for almost 20 years... in actual use the lens has problems with Focus from about 7 ft to Infinity. The lens has a hair trigger Focus movement from about seven feet outwards and many times it will miss Focus very slightly which due to the focusing ring travel means that once you get the pictures back you have missed Focus. Even when you are aware that this lens has Focus issues it is still quite easy to have missed Focus. The last time I used this lens in a portrait session was 2012 and I had quite a few shots in which the focus was off by about 6 inches in a family group portrait shot. In all shooting situations this lens will give great color saturation, but often at the expense of missed Focus. Anyone who recommends a macro lens such as this for General use is not fully aware of what an actual lens should be. It's not about sharpness--it's about getting the goddamn thing to focus accurately and reliably! The problem with this lens is _reliable_ Focus and any recommendation of this lens should have as its Central Foundation a note that this lens is unreliable in actual use. just look at the goddamn thing... it is designed to focus critically at close range. Beyond about 2 METERS you have only three or four degrees or travel before you hit Infinity, meaning that many many times the lens will focus far enough off to ruin the pictures.

 

[Braineack]

I don't watch trash.

Thanks for confirming. I hope you enjoy remaining ignorant then.

You follow the photography advice of a squealing fool that can't actually take a photo.

I've thoroughly evaluated over years of watching his trash. For some reason he has some cult following of ignorant viewers who are attracted to conspiracy theories who pay for his BMW payments. He's the Alex Jones of photography.

Ignorant is defined as: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

I have demonstrated knowledge of angry man [my Fuji comment gave a lot away], and given my own advice here in this thread. I don't think I quality as ignorant. Maybe pot kettle black?