Walking around lens

HiHoSilver · Mar 9, 2016

Gents, When I first bought my FE2 in the mid-80s, one path of received wisdom at the time was the 2 lens approach - 28-70 & 70-200. Done. I was given a 28-70 and find it covers an awful lot of ground, but this one AF 28-70 3.5-4.0 doesn't seem all that crisp, compared to any of the fixed lens. Maybe that was just what was doable at the time in a zoom. It was costly then - just south of $800. I don't know if any Nikonaholics would know of a particularly crisp, preferably affordable lens in this range. 'Don't need uber fast, don't need recent - unless its really worth saving for & chasing. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Sirius Glass · Mar 9, 2016

My walk around lenses for my Nikon N75 and F100:

Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens
Tamron 28mm to 300mm AF zoom lens

On the heavy side is the metal Nikon 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens.

Sirius Glass · Mar 9, 2016

The zoom lenses are sharp enough for 35mm, two prints of which are C-41 color enlarged to 24"x36" [even the grain is sharp]. If I want sharp, then I use the Hasselblad. All the serious stuff is done with a Hasselblad. After all that is why I am called Sirius Glass: 38mm [SWC], 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 250mm and 500mm, 2XE all by Zeiss.

MattKing · Mar 9, 2016

A 35mm f/2 Zuiko lens on any of several Olympus OM bodies.

Being Olympus OM, there is room in the small camera bag for the 24mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/2.0 as well.

In the autofocus world, the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens on either a Rebel 2000 (really light) or Elan 7ne (really capable) are good too.

HiHoSilver · Mar 9, 2016

An 18-200 lives on the digital - pretty much never comes off. 'Boatload of lens for the buck.
Sirius, that 28-200 seems a great range - and then I see 6' min. focus distance regardless of focal length. Dang! I'm not used to considering Tamron, but it does have a nice 19" min. focus distance. Since you have both - any significant difference in images? Ergos?, ease of use?
I also bought the blad for what I thought would be more serious work & it does not disappoint. But for all but the rare, gifted person, I think 35 owns action - so I' unable to adopt a version of 'its just 35'. I want the cheese from my 35 also. The 24mm fixed (and 300) delivers like magic.

Sirius Glass · Mar 9, 2016

HiHoSilver said:
An 18-200 lives on the digital - pretty much never comes off. 'Boatload of lens for the buck.
Sirius, that 28-200 seems a great range - and then I see 6' min. focus distance regardless of focal length. Dang! I'm not used to considering Tamron, but it does have a nice 19" min. focus distance. Since you have both - any significant difference in images? Ergos?, ease of use?

Both can do macro photography. Up to 200mm the photographs are indistinguishable.

HiHoSilver said:
I also bought the blad for what I thought would be more serious work & it does not disappoint. But for all but the rare, gifted person, I think 35 owns action - so I' unable to adopt a version of 'its just 35'. I want the cheese from my 35 also. The 24mm fixed (and 300) delivers like magic.

With the PME prism, the Hasselblad handles like a large 35mm camera that has a big viewfinder. Of course the SWC is a special camera by itself.

HiHoSilver · Mar 9, 2016

Sirius - makes that Tamron sound good. I appreciate your kind help.

jimjm · Mar 10, 2016

Generally, I've found the Nikon fixed FL lenses to be better than the zooms, but the fixed lenses have their share of dogs and there are some great zooms as well.

For a reasonable price, I like the 35-70/3.5 AIS (62 filter) as a walking around lens. Great build quality, very sharp with good contrast. I have the 28-85/3.5-4.5 (AF and MF) and the 35-105/3.5-4.5, and the 35-70 is a bit better.

In a longer zoom, try the 75-150/3.5 E or the 80-200/4.0. Both are very good, but the 80-200 is an especially nice lens.

It really comes down to your shooting style and what focal lengths you prefer. I don't use the zooms as much these days as I'm more comfortable with specific fixed focal lengths, and have learned what suits my style of shooting. Whatever fits your style will ultimately give you the best results.

Alan Gales · Mar 10, 2016

Hmmmm. I always thought a walking around lens for a 35mm camera was a fast 35mm or 50mm prime lens.

cooltouch · Mar 10, 2016

For years, my walking around kit was a Canon F-1 (original model) with a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 and a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4. 28mm to 300mm gave me a lot of reach for most any situation. I really enjoyed that old Vivitar. It was tack sharp, but it did tend to vignette a bit at 28mm and apertures faster than f/4. I still own two copies of that lens, one in Canon FD mount and one in Nikon F. Here's one of my favorite shots I took with it while walking along the beach one afternoon.

Canon F-1, Vivitar s1 28-90, Kodachrome 64:

And another favorite shot at dawn. Canon A-1, Vivitar S1 28-90, Kodachrome 64:

HiHoSilver · Mar 10, 2016

Gents, thank you. I had an odd occurrance in the 70-200. I use a cheap aftermarket copy of the nikkor. The shop said the cheap one was sharper. At the time, they sold 12 exp rolls and I took both lens outside & fired 6 frames each, mostly at a brick wall. Indeed, the cheap lens gave better sharpness than the 4x the price nikkor - so that's why I shoot the cheap zoom in that range.
I would not have thought of the Tamron, except for Sirius. 'Seems to have potential there. That a Vivitar or other might satisfy is interesting. I half expected to hear calls to just zoom w/ my feet - which I do, but its not always possible. Again, thank you for your help.

MontanaJay · Mar 10, 2016

On my Fs, and later FM, I kept a 105 on the camera and a 28 in my pocket.

baachitraka · Mar 10, 2016

Zuiko 35mm f/2.8 or Zuiko 28mm f/3.5

I wish I can afford f/2.0 lenses soon but right now I am very happy with little zuikos.

Sirius Glass · Mar 10, 2016

Alan Gales said:
Hmmmm. I always thought a walking around lens for a 35mm camera was a fast 35mm or 50mm prime lens.

In European cities I have found that a 28mm lens for 35mm cameras and the 50mm lens for the Hasselblad are also great lenses for walking around.

baachitraka · Mar 10, 2016

True. In Bremen, 35mm will give you very good coverage whereas cities like Venice 28mm is a must.

benjiboy · Mar 10, 2016

My most used walk round lens is a Canon FD 28-85 f4 zoom lens it's quite rare nowadays but is sharp and very versatile.

jeffreythree · Mar 10, 2016

I like a 35mm or 50mm prime for walking around, and don't really like the heft and size of most zooms.

Alan Gales · Mar 10, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
In European cities I have found that a 28mm lens for 35mm cameras and the 50mm lens for the Hasselblad are also great lenses for walking around.

I believe it. They have narrower streets than here in U.S. cities. My step-son was recently in Italy with a Canon AE-1 and 50mm lens. He told me that he felt the lens was a little too long there.

I envy you. It would be fun walking around European cities with a Hasselblad and 50mm.

BrianShaw · Mar 10, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
A 50mm 2.0 Nikkor. Plain and simple, sharp as a tack. I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a blanket statement for which I'll get yelled at. I think zoom lenses had some purpose, but not as a steady diet. They're just not generally sharp.

50/1.4, and I agree...

ac12 · Mar 10, 2016

In order of lenses (35mm film cameras)
- My first was a 50mm (on a Mamiya/Sekor)
- 2nd was a Nikon 43-86 (when I changed to Nikon)
- current 35-105 and 28-85

But depending on what and where you are shooting, I can see the lens selection changing to fit the situation/environment.
Such as a FAST 35mm or 50mm, where you need FAST glass for dim light.
Maybe a 400mm, if you are bird watching.
A 24,28 or 35mm depending on space, or lack of space.

monkowa · Mar 10, 2016

A nifty 50 1.8 is probably the only lens I'd need to keep if I had to give up all my other lenses.

Ricardo Miranda · Mar 10, 2016

Alan Gales said:
I believe it. They have narrower streets than here in U.S. cities. My step-son was recently in Italy with a Canon AE-1 and 50mm lens. He told me that he felt the lens was a little too long there.

There are plenty of very large streets in many capital cities.
You just haven't been there or seen them.

A 28mm or 35mm have their usefulness and these prime lenses are all what I carry around.

To the OP:
You mentioned the FE2. I have the same model.
As it is an AI body, I recommend the Nikon Series E 28mm and 35mm.
They should be cheap and light enough for you.
Zoom lenses are always a compromise.

Sirius Glass · Mar 10, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
In European cities I have found that a 28mm lens for 35mm cameras and the 50mm lens for the Hasselblad are also great lenses for walking around.

Alan Gales said:
I believe it. They have narrower streets than here in U.S. cities. My step-son was recently in Italy with a Canon AE-1 and 50mm lens. He told me that he felt the lens was a little too long there.

I envy you. It would be fun walking around European cities with a Hasselblad and 50mm.

Last May I carried around the 50mm and 80mm [normal] lenses in Paris. I used the 50mm much more than I used the 80mm lens. I have had similar experiences in London, Rome, Venice, Naples, and many smaller cities and towns. I could have used the 250mm lens exactly once during the whole trip, but I did not have it. With the weight and space considerations the 50mm and 80mm lenses were the right choice.

ColColt · Mar 10, 2016

For me a good walking around lens is a 50 or 35mm lens. I actually have no zoom lens specifically for film cameras. The worse zoom lens I had was back in '79 when I had the Nikkor 43-86...worse Nikkor ever.

Sirius Glass · Mar 10, 2016

The pre-Series One Vivitar 85 to 205 zoom lens that I had [early 1970's] was somewhat of a low contrast looser.

Walking around lens

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency