your dream zoom range for a walkaround lense

[IHateMyJob2004]

If you could make a lens to be your walk around lens, what range would it encompass. Now, let's not get crazy and say 8-300mm. But realistically speaking. And of the lenses out there what would you choose?

Dream:
15-125mm

Actual Lens:
15-85mm
18-135mm

UPDATE: I underlined an important phrase that i guess people misunderstood. To clarify, let's make it an expensive lense, but how about we say that this is something that could be realistically produced for under $1500.

 

[Throckmorton]

18-300mm f4

It would also be perfect for shooting rodeos

 

[GoSharks]

18-300mm f4

It would also be perfect for shooting rodeos

That would be way too heavy for a walkaround.

 

[ElFenix]

40 f/1 on 35 mm film

http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm but 2 stops faster.

god that would be good with some delta 3200

maybe 28 f/1

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

Very roughly, 16-120mm f/2.8-4 - 7.5x zoom is entirely reasonable, and I'd imagine such a lens would be within reason for cost, weight, and size as well. Really, I could live with a constant f/4, and even, say, 17-100mm, though I wouldn't pay as much for it.

Alternatively, 16-40mm f/2.

 

[jpeyton]

Realistically, Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 is my perfect balance of range, constant aperture, and price.

If someone could make a 18-105mm f/2.8, that would be my lens 95% of the time.

The problem with our love of fast aperture glass is that making those lenses 35mm compatible requires large amounts of glass, making the lens heavy and a challenge to design.

But the digital imaging market is making huge progress with smaller sensors (smaller than 35mm or APS-C) and designing fast aperture zoom lenses for smaller sensors is a more realistic proposition.

 

[Throckmorton]

That would be way too heavy for a walkaround.

What if it's for APS-C only?

 

[Gooberlx2]

18-135 is a good walkround range, imo. Wish Pentax's was a wider fixed aperture, but then it'd be larger, heavier and more expensive than it already is.

 

[iGas]

20-100mm f/2.8 for full frame camera if that is possible and keep it under 1.5 lbs would be great.

Or, 13-65mm f/2.8 for APS-C.

With built in leaf shutter at 1/1000s or better yet 1/2000s.

I would gladly pay $3000 for it if such a beast exist, and obviously it must be tack sharp and focus down to 1:2.

 

[fralexandr]

my current dream lens within reason is the sigma bigma 50-500 OS HSM.
i'd like it to be able to get 1:2 magnification, constant f4.5, and be weather sealed, but it does 1:3 which is good enough i guess. constant 4.5 aperature (while not making it massive) and weather sealing this kind of lens would be a pipe dream though.
This is mostly because I want to get a job as a field biologist, but it doesn't seem to be happening
i just can't justify spending that much on such a lens as things are now.

also if anyone's looking at getting one new, sigma finally has a $150 instant rebate on it
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...rch=yes&sts=ma

 

[richaron]

nifty fifty :thumbsup:

not exactly a ~zoom range~, but as long as it's sharp & fast I'm happy... but on my four thirds system these days its a "nifty twenty-five".

 

[SecurityTheatre]

What if it's for APS-C only?

A 300mm f/4 would be a substantial piece of glass, even on APS sizes.

The Nikon 55-300 DX f/5.6 is already well over a pound and it's made entirely of crappy plastic.

Making it f/4 would be 2 pounds, at least, and getting it to zoom to wide angle... It would be like a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but with a massive front element that has to extend in and out by a foot...

the sharpness and distortion characteristics would be quite poor indeed.

But, to be honest... I just don't think it would be possible. Glass can only refract so much and a 38x zoom is just not going to happen without ugly, nasty compromises.



For me... I might wish for something like 20-150 f/4. I would pay $2000 for it (because that's what it would cost).

It would be a bit of a heavy monster, but I honestly don't mind heavy if it avoids carrying a second body (which I do sometimes) or extra lenses (which I do often).

20mm is my point of "yes, this is nice and wide". I love my 12mm and 17mm lenses, but 20 is the longest I can go and still think "yeah, I can make this do mostly anything I need in wide angle".

150mm is sort of the shortest I feel you can go and still have that "yes, this is real telephoto".

Of course this is all on FX.

 

[corkyg]

One I have grown to like for my Canon 5D-II is the EF DO 70-300mm, f/4.5-5.6. It is actually smaller and lighter than the 24-105 kit lens. Weight is only about 25 ounces.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[RampantAndroid]

If someone could make a 18-105mm f/2.8, that would be my lens 95% of the time.

This - 18-105 in f/2.8 would be amazing (in APS-C, though I'd buy it as an FX lens if it existed.)

 

[ultimatebob]

If I'm dreaming, why not ask for an 8-300mm f/1.4 IS lens that I can fit in my pocket for $100?

That lens probably breaks a few laws of physics, but it is my dream lens!

 

[iGas]

This camera & lenses but in digital format. http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Kowa_SETR_eng.html

 

[Railgun]

That would be way too heavy for a walkaround.

But if it`s your ONLY lens...

Either that or a 24-120, then a...70-300...neither of which I don`t like anyway.

My bag has the above 24-120 f3.5-5.6, 16-35 f4 and a 50 f1.4 in addition to my filters, flash, etc on a D700 with grip.

I`d rather have a single, heavier lens around my shoulder than a lighter one and big weight on my back. The 24-120 just isn`t enough on the long end for a good walkaround. And its IQ blows.

Nikon has a 28-300 but it`s 3.5-5.6 and the IQ isn`t all that. I was seriously thinking about that but I`m not going to get it for the sake of getting it.

I think that range would be good if it was a fixed aperture, though that in itself doesn`t dictate IQ, but it would be a good start.

I think the second part of this question is...what would you pay for it?

 

[corkyg]

... I think the second part of this question is...what would you pay for it?

IMHO, in discussing a DREAM lens, cost is not relevant. But, for a REALITY lens, I agree.

 

[GWestphal]

0.1-10,000 F0.1 with 1/1000000 shutter, 1000:1 macro

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

15-85 in f/2.8 and im set. For now the 17-55 does quite well but I do like UWAs a lot. I switch from my Tokina a lot.

 

[GoSharks]

But if it`s your ONLY lens...

Either that or a 24-120, then a...70-300...neither of which I don`t like anyway.

My bag has the above 24-120 f3.5-5.6, 16-35 f4 and a 50 f1.4 in addition to my filters, flash, etc on a D700 with grip.

I`d rather have a single, heavier lens around my shoulder than a lighter one and big weight on my back. The 24-120 just isn`t enough on the long end for a good walkaround. And its IQ blows.

Nikon has a 28-300 but it`s 3.5-5.6 and the IQ isn`t all that. I was seriously thinking about that but I`m not going to get it for the sake of getting it.

I think that range would be good if it was a fixed aperture, though that in itself doesn`t dictate IQ, but it would be a good start.

I think the second part of this question is...what would you pay for it?

You would rather have what would probably be a >1.5kg lens as a walk around?

For reference:
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM 1190g
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED 1,440g

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

People are getting carried away.

To clarify, let's make it an expensive lense, but how about we say that this is something that could be realistically produced for under $1500.

 

[kowalabearhugs]

40 f/1 on 35 mm film

http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm but 2 stops faster.

god that would be good with some delta 3200

maybe 28 f/1

I completely agree.

 

[mchammer187]

Existing

17-55 f2.8 IS

or

24-70 f2.8


I don't know if you are gonna get any better than either of those for crop/ FF respectively

35 mm f1.4 is amazing too

I prefer a fast lens to one that has a large zoom range though for most of the things I like to shoot

 

[Railgun]

You would rather have what would probably be a >1.5kg lens as a walk around?

For reference:
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM 1190g
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED 1,440g

16-35 680g
24-120 575g
50 280g

Replace the above with one lens? Yeah. I'm ok with that.