Best Walking Around Lens

[Larry S.]

I’ve read the responses and it all comes back to what you hope to achieve in street photography. Consider the variety of scenes you may want to capture. Here’s a few samples w/different equipment over a few years. Walking through the N/O French Quarter, a Key West, Florida street, and a bar in Knoxville, Tennessee…

Nimi’s advice of a 35mm f/1.4 is excellent…. I could have shot all these with that one lens…. Don’t over think this…. Move to get your best shot….

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[beano]

I’m late to the party, but anyway, here goes:
1. If I need versatility, I simply drop the 24-120 f/4 on the one Zf body, and I always have my Voigtländer MF 40 f/1.2 on the 2nd Zf.
2. If I’m in the mood to carry one body only, I always have the 40 f/1.2 on it, and my 26 f/2.8 pancake in the pocket.

These combos are what works best for me, YMMV.

 

[seh]

The Z 24-200, while not an S is quite useful and light. I don't have a urge for the 24-120. The z 40 f2 is good forroutine street and family shots

 

[Calson]

The advantage of using a zoom like the 24-120mm lens for street photography is that over time you can analyze your images to learn what focal length work the best. For me over the past 55 years the 105mm focal length has worked the best in terms of its view angle and the working distance between me and my subjects. Shorter focal lengths and one gets more extraneous stuff in the frame and closer subject distances make many people uncomfortable and it shows in the pictures with their body language and facial expressions.

Focal length affects the apparent DOF at a given aperture. The 70-200mm at f/5.6 provide a very nice background blurring at 200mm and sufficient DOF for people's faces.

 

[Michael Dreese]

Ok, I realize that's a wide open question and the answer is "it depends" but just looking to generate some thoughts for myself. My normal lens for this has been the Z 24-70/f4 which came with my Z7II but that was mostly supplanted by the 24-120/f4 unless weight was really important. However…at f4 neither of these is really good for street photography or low light or situations where shallow DoF is a nice thing to have. So…I'm considering adding a faster prime for this sort of situation. While f1.2 is better than f1.4 for DoF issues…the weight and size for me make the extra 1/3 of a stop not worth it. So…thinking of either the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4…and wondered which would be more useful for this sort of single lens/body walk around I'm OK with foot zooming if needed use. One thing I am going to do is try a couple outings and shoot just at 35 and 50 to see what seems to suit better but wondered what others might have concluded.

I love my Z 24-120 for general purpose travel but if weight and space are a consideration, I would highly recommend the 40mm f2. It’s light, sharp and renders very nicely. It’s a great one lens solution but could be paired with a zoom or the 28mm 2.8. Also, the 40 and 28 are very affordable.

 

[Jason Ponfil]

Ok, I realize that's a wide open question and the answer is "it depends" but just looking to generate some thoughts for myself. My normal lens for this has been the Z 24-70/f4 which came with my Z7II but that was mostly supplanted by the 24-120/f4 unless weight was really important. However…at f4 neither of these is really good for street photography or low light or situations where shallow DoF is a nice thing to have. So…I'm considering adding a faster prime for this sort of situation. While f1.2 is better than f1.4 for DoF issues…the weight and size for me make the extra 1/3 of a stop not worth it. So…thinking of either the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4…and wondered which would be more useful for this sort of single lens/body walk around I'm OK with foot zooming if needed use. One thing I am going to do is try a couple outings and shoot just at 35 and 50 to see what seems to suit better but wondered what others might have concluded.

I think the answer depends on what subjects you're shooting. On a recent trip to Italy, I took a 14mm prime, a 24-70 and a 70-200. Well, I never took out my 70-200. I used my 14 a couple times, but my 24-70 was the one mostly on my camera. Of course, I was shooting a lot of buildings and statutes, and inside museums, churches and galleries, as well as street scenes. The 14 came in handy for some night shooting on a tripod, but even then my 24-70 was on my camera most of the time. On the other hand, if I was shooting people or wanted more detail on things further away, my 70-200 would have been preferred. Others have mentioned a 24-120, which would be an ideal walk around lens, IMO. But, I am always looking for caring the least amount of lenses on trips like this. I know you want a faster lens, and I have a 24 1.4 that I have taken and used for astro-photography. Yes it's nice, but I find for walking around, I prefer the versatility of a zoom and with software these days, I have just been going to a higher ISO. Hope this helps!

 

[Wildlife_follower]

Ok, I realize that's a wide open question and the answer is "it depends" but just looking to generate some thoughts for myself. My normal lens for this has been the Z 24-70/f4 which came with my Z7II but that was mostly supplanted by the 24-120/f4 unless weight was really important. However…at f4 neither of these is really good for street photography or low light or situations where shallow DoF is a nice thing to have. So…I'm considering adding a faster prime for this sort of situation. While f1.2 is better than f1.4 for DoF issues…the weight and size for me make the extra 1/3 of a stop not worth it. So…thinking of either the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4…and wondered which would be more useful for this sort of single lens/body walk around I'm OK with foot zooming if needed use. One thing I am going to do is try a couple outings and shoot just at 35 and 50 to see what seems to suit better but wondered what others might have concluded.

Hi Anjin, I see some posts refer to the Z 24-200. I have used it extensively for travel photography for both weight and size convenience. Granted it is a f4-f6.3 lens, but with the Z sensors, it delivers good quality images. When in Iceland, I had a Tamron 24-70 f2,8 for landscape and panoramics and switched to the Z 24-200 early in the trip and had no regrets, I got back great images. If you are concerned about the f number, look at what length you use the most, in my case, between 24 and 50 for about 40% of shots and 40% beyond 100, and 20% between 50 an 100. My average f number was 5. But... I trusted the auto ISO to do the work and quite frankly, even in bad lighting, the iso-lens combo turned out to great rendering. Since you already have the 24-120, on the shorter end I don't see any other benefits than small size, weight and lower f# a 35 of 50 mm lens would bring, and at the longer end, maybe the occasional 1,4x tc can bring your lens to 170 mm, with a higher iso at time. I have too much prime glass for my needs, always wanting the bigger openings and prime glass quality, but in the end, it is the convenience/weight combo that drives my choice. and btw, when doing a specific and planned photo outing, those primes get their fair share of use ! Good luck with your decision, and you are doing the right thing in "drive" testing combinations, you might have surprises !

 

[bobarue]

I use my nikon 28-300 VR when I want a light kit to carry around. It's a good lens as long as you stop it down some. My newer 24-70 VR is another alternative.

 

[Anjin San]

Hi Anjin, I see some posts refer to the Z 24-200. I have used it extensively for travel photography for both weight and size convenience. Granted it is a f4-f6.3 lens, but with the Z sensors, it delivers good quality images. When in Iceland, I had a Tamron 24-70 f2,8 for landscape and panoramics and switched to the Z 24-200 early in the trip and had no regrets, I got back great images. If you are concerned about the f number, look at what length you use the most, in my case, between 24 and 50 for about 40% of shots and 40% beyond 100, and 20% between 50 an 100. My average f number was 5. But... I trusted the auto ISO to do the work and quite frankly, even in bad lighting, the iso-lens combo turned out to great rendering. Since you already have the 24-120, on the shorter end I don't see any other benefits than small size, weight and lower f# a 35 of 50 mm lens would bring, and at the longer end, maybe the occasional 1,4x tc can bring your lens to 170 mm, with a higher iso at time. I have too much prime glass for my needs, always wanting the bigger openings and prime glass quality, but in the end, it is the convenience/weight combo that drives my choice. and btw, when doing a specific and planned photo outing, those primes get their fair share of use ! Good luck with your decision, and you are doing the right thing in "drive" testing combinations, you might have surprises !

I’ve got that lens as well…and you’re right, outside the aperture it’s a perfectly fine lens for travel…and I used an 18-300 for a long time on my D7500. I’ve looked in LR but TBH most of our previous travel was geared towards photography and thus I had way heavier gear along…we haven’t done much plain old travel so far but it is increasing as we go along…hence my planned testing on the trip next month to try just 35 and 50 to see how it works. Might turn out that the 24-70 is the best travel lens for me or maybe the heavier 24-120 or 24-200. I should probably have done that experiment before the thread start…but it has generated plenty of good honking points. OTOH…I can always steal/borrow my wife’s Z50 kit which is light a small and just use it.

 

[bobarue]

I’ve got that lens as well…and you’re right, outside the aperture it’s a perfectly fine lens for travel…and I used an 18-300 for a long time on my D7500. I’ve looked in LR but TBH most of our previous travel was geared towards photography and thus I had way heavier gear along…we haven’t done much plain old travel so far but it is increasing as we go along…hence my planned testing on the trip next month to try just 35 and 50 to see how it works. Might turn out that the 24-70 is the best travel lens for me or maybe the heavier 24-120 or 24-200. I should probably have done that experiment before the thread start…but it has generated plenty of good honking points. OTOH…I can always steal/borrow my wife’s Z50 kit which is light a small and just use it.

Back when we went out west to Utah and Arizona National Parks, I had a D200 and pretty much had my 17-55 on at all times which as you know is basically a 24-70mm lens. I also carried a backpack and tripod, about 30lbs, on all my hikes. I carried all that gear and never switched lenses but only a few times at the Grand Canyon when I put the 12-24mmDX. Never took out the 70-200VR or 60 macro. I learned my lesson after hiking with all of that on our 15 day trip to all of those NPs.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Why are you messing around with such small lenses? If you are going to walk around with a camera, you need something that tells people you are a real photographer!
Just get this Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with an FTZ adapter and be done!

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[bobarue]

Cool, new macro lens!

 

[O]

Ok, I realize that's a wide open question and the answer is "it depends" but just looking to generate some thoughts for myself. My normal lens for this has been the Z 24-70/f4 which came with my Z7II but that was mostly supplanted by the 24-120/f4 unless weight was really important. However…at f4 neither of these is really good for street photography or low light or situations where shallow DoF is a nice thing to have. So…I'm considering adding a faster prime for this sort of situation. While f1.2 is better than f1.4 for DoF issues…the weight and size for me make the extra 1/3 of a stop not worth it. So…thinking of either the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4…and wondered which would be more useful for this sort of single lens/body walk around I'm OK with foot zooming if needed use. One thing I am going to do is try a couple outings and shoot just at 35 and 50 to see what seems to suit better but wondered what others might have concluded.

I use 50mm 1.4 Ziess

Or the 50mm 1.4 S

or the 16mm fish eye

 

[Mal Paso]

The 40 f2 is great when subjects are close or you want a less intimidating camera. The 40 on a Z7 is a great combination. Light and small. If I'm on a hike though I'll take the 24-200 for a chance at wildlife shots. Won't touch a 500mm shot but an "environmental" shot is better than no shot.

 

[beano]

Why are you messing around with such small lenses? If you are going to walk around with a camera, you need something that tells people you are a real photographer!
Just get this Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with an FTZ adapter and be done!

View attachment 100031

Haha, the old ‘Bigma’ - I need to work on my biceps a bit before attempting to shoot with that. Even my tripod would shiver….

 

[Anjin San]

Back when we went out west to Utah and Arizona National Parks, I had a D200 and pretty much had my 17-55 on at all times which as you know is basically a 24-70mm lens. I also carried a backpack and tripod, about 30lbs, on all my hikes. I carried all that gear and never switched lenses but only a few times at the Grand Canyon when I put the 12-24mmDX. Never took out the 70-200VR or 60 macro. I learned my lesson after hiking with all of that on our 15 day trip to all of those NPs.

I did a similar thing last summer on a trip to the UK…wife had a choral tour thing and we spent some time in Yorkshire Dales and Lakes Districts afterward. Took the 24-120, 14-30, and 100-400 with a Z8 and the latter 2 lenses never got mounted. Wildlife was pretty much non existent as we drove around and the short zoom handled all the landscapes just fine.

 

[Anjin San]

Why are you messing around with such small lenses? If you are going to walk around with a camera, you need something that tells people you are a real photographer!
Just get this Sigma 200-500 f2.8 with an FTZ adapter and be done!

View attachment 100031

Will you sherpa it for me? You'll have to pay your own airfare, meals and hotel and I won't be able to pay you after buying that monster…but I'll let you take a couple of shots with it.

 

[Mal Paso]

Will you sherpa it for me? You'll have to pay your own airfare, meals and hotel and I won't be able to pay you after buying that monster…but I'll let you take a couple of shots with it.

There should be Porters, similar to Caddies. Hand you the camera with the correct lens mounted and tell you: "the egret runs a little fast and breaks to the right".

 

[wotan1]

I am a contrarian when it comes to walking around with cameras. I would almost always bring a Z9 and a heavier more capable lens.

These days if I go out somewhere casual I am usually going to either use the 24-70mm f2.8 or the 135mm Plena.

I can carry using a Holdfast strap which I can do all day with comfort.

I am obviously not inconspicuous and I get a lot of comments and questions particularly with the Plena.

If I really want to be invisible I have a Z7ii for which I have one of those tiny and cheap pancake lenses.

 

[peachfront]

If I really want to be invisible I have a Z7ii for which I have one of those tiny and cheap pancake lenses.

I've been using the Z7ii + 26mm pancake lens on the recommendation of somebody here... maybe it was you! I've found it's a very easy way for me as a beginner to get used to walking around with a camera.

 

[Anjin San]

There should be Porters, similar to Caddies. Hand you the camera with the correct lens mounted and tell you: "the egret runs a little fast and breaks to the right".

That would be good…especially if they could give you 1 second warning before the bird flies so you can mash the shutter button.