Is this lens good as a carry around lens instead of using the 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera?
1135868
Its same size as the lens you have. After i bought 16mm and 50mm i dont carry 18-55mm lens anymore. I shoot video more because this is one of back up cameras. This is one of the lens i like because i can only shoot 3200iso max for low light set with 16mm lens. However, this 50mm lens can go up to max iso, which is 12600iso. Love this lens specially with nex7.
1135869
Hey there.I would suggest an exercise if you have the 18-55, but want to start shooting primarily with a fixed focus prime lens. Set the 18-55 to 50, and take shots for the next week only at that length...50 serious shots should give you an idea if you like it as a walkaround. Since there is a really nice sony 35mm lens as well, try that length out also. Personally I like 24mm or 35mm as a walkaround, 50mm is a little too telescopic but it is a very personal preferance.
1135870
The short answer is; absolutely not. This is a specialty lens best used for portraiture, low light shooting or to isolate a subject that is close by. It really excels at all three. The zoom is far more versatile as a walk around lens where you will probably use it cranked to its widest most of the time.
1135871
Yes. I used this lens as my primary and also carried the pancake lens. The two are far better lens and offer good options for medium range and wide angle. The larger aperture on the 1.8 makes for far better pics than the kit lens could ever capture. Both lens fit into a fairly small camera bag when your mobile.Hope this helps.
1135872
I use a prime lens as my carry around lens all the time. I find the quality of the glass and the low light capability very useful. However you have to get used to not being able to zoom in and out. You have to get better at framing your subject. I'd say this is a good lens for some landscapes and small group photos as well a portraits. If you need to shoot in small rooms or in tight situations like a restaurant you may need the room to back up (to 8 feet) or so to take a photo of a group of 3. The best trial is to use the kit lens for a day on 50mm and see if that works for you.
1135873
We carried both on our European honeymoon. The 50 mm f/1.8 lens is GREAT for portraits when you want to blur the background, but it is not good for landscapes or where you need to stand pretty close to the subject but want a normal field of view. We found that it was hard to just carry the 50 mm lens without having the 18-55 lens in back-up, but the pictures with the 50 mm lens are our favorites. If you really wanted to just carry one lens, you could probably get by with the 50 mm lens plus a camera phone.
1135874
Size wise this lens is definitely still relatively compact to walk around with. I personally love shooting with the lens, but it does tend to be a bit tight for my taste (crop factor brings it to closer to a 75mm) I'd prefer a 50. And since it's a prime (non zoom) lens you need to resort to old school "zoom" aka your feet. The improved image quality and ability to capture low light pictures give it advantages over the kit lens.I'd say if you don't mind occasionally being constrained by the fixed zoom and having to think of other ways to capture the scene its great Otherwise the kit lens will cover essentially the same range so stick with that. Size wise this lens is definitely still relatively compact to walk around with. I personally love shooting with the lens, but it does tend to be a bit tight for my taste (crop factor brings it to closer to a 75mm) I'd prefer a 50. And since it's a prime (non zoom) lens you need to resort to old school "zoom" aka your feet. The improved image quality and ability to capture low light pictures give it advantages over the kit lens.I'd say if you don't mind occasionally being constrained by the fixed zoom and having to think of other ways to capture the scene its... » Read More Size wise this lens is definitely still relatively compact to walk around with. I personally love shooting with the lens, but it does tend to be a bit tight for my taste (crop factor brings it to closer to a 75mm) I'd prefer a 50. And since it's a prime (non zoom) lens you need to resort to old school "zoom" aka your feet. The improved image quality and ability to capture low light pictures give it advantages over the kit lens.I'd say if you don't mind occasionally being constrained by the fixed zoom and having to think of other ways to capture the scene its great Otherwise the kit lens will cover essentially the same range so stick with that. « Show Less
1135875
IMO no. The 35mm or Zeiss 24mm would be much better. If you are outdoors, the 50mm is ok, but if someone is right near you, or you want a landscape/building shot, the focal length of the 50 will be too long. (I own the Zeiss 24 and this 50)
1135876
It's really great for portrait shots, medium distance, and low light. But the 18-55mm is better for wider angles and multiple different situations. If you want a prime lens for walking around that also gives good light and wide angle, get the Sigma 30mm prime for this style of camera. We have that lens as well and it is better with light while giving wide angle shots.
827133
It's a good lens for my needs. I have found the 18-300mm type lenses just don't do all that well, I think too much range to cover but this does well and being a f/2.8 it's better for darker shots. Heavier than a kit lens but worth it in my opinion.
494447
The 18-135mm lens is great for its zoom range which is very good. There are times when you'll want to zoom out all the way for its wide shots, and other times when you zoom in all the way for closeups. The main drawback is that it's wider, longer, and significantly heavier than the 18-55mm lens. It's difficult to stick the lens into a cargo pants pocket, so you better have a good camera bag if you'll be switching lenses on the fly. I haven't tried the SL1 camera, but expect the 18-135mm lens to be heavier than the camera itself. I also recommend you get the petal style lens hood for it if you're extra picky about image quality. The 18-135mm lens is great for its zoom range which is very good. There are times when you'll want to zoom out all the way for its wide shots, and other times when you zoom in all the way for closeups. The main drawback is that it's wider, longer, and significantly heavier than the 18-55mm lens. It's difficult to stick the lens into a cargo pants pocket, so you better have a good camera bag if you'll be switching lenses on the fly. I haven't tried the SL1 camera, but expect the 18-135mm lens to be heavier than the camera itself. I also recommend you get the petal style lens hood for it if... » Read More The 18-135mm lens is great for its zoom range which is very good. There are times when you'll want to zoom out all the way for its wide shots, and other times when you zoom in all the way for closeups. The main drawback is that it's wider, longer, and significantly heavier than the 18-55mm lens. It's difficult to stick the lens into a cargo pants pocket, so you better have a good camera bag if you'll be switching lenses on the fly. I haven't tried the SL1 camera, but expect the 18-135mm lens to be heavier than the camera itself. I also recommend you get the petal style lens hood for it if you're extra picky about image quality. « Show Less
1796675
It is a slight bit better than the 50mm 1.4...way better than the 18-55. It's not up to an L lens quality but it does slightly beat out the build of my 50mm 1.4
523659
The 24-105mm isn't very wide for a walk-around lens. I'm more inclined to recommend the 15-85mm IS USM for its very nice optics, extra wide angle view and overall versatility.The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is an excellent zoom that is particularly useful in low light. It doesn't offer the range of the 24-105 or 15-85 but you won't find a better standard zoom for a Canon crop camera.
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
494444
Yes by all means. The 18-135 is much better lens with better optics, and the additional focal lenth will come in handy. This lens is also heavier but much better built than the 18-55. Also the lens hood for the 18-135 is a nice petal shaped hood, but the hood for the 18-55 is a complete joke.
1696785
This is a great lens for the money. I use mine for all the reasons you stated, and have been pleased with the photos I have gotten. I have used it with an A700, A350, A55, and A77 and it performered great with these cameras. It is plastic housing which many think derides the lens, but I have found nothing to support this complaint. It is a good general lens, and I would buy this again if needed.
143452
It is a really nice lens. Though if you want portrait or medium telephoto, the 135 f/2 or the 70-200 f/2.8 are both fantastic as well, and maybe better suited.
357733
I love the range of this lens. I travel a lot and bring it with me all the time using it with a D800. I rarely use my bag and most often the camera and lens sit on the flood of my car. Haven't had any issues with build quality. I have several prime lenses for quality but the 24-120 is good enough for memories and small (13x19) prints. Haven't tried a 24x36 print from it. It's a good performer but not as good as the 24-70. If you are looking for a travel/walkabout lens it is great. If you are looking to sell your work or print larger prints get the 24-70.
1650133
While this lens performs well in a fairly wide variety of situations, I would recommend the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 af-s dx or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 af lenses for portraits. Either of those will give you much better performance in lower light situations and they are both very sharp lenses. As I said, the 18-55mm is a great lens but if you want to focus exclusively on portraits, go with one of the others instead. I actually prefer the 35mm over the 50mm. Just my two cents though.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
464455
The 18-55 is a great lens, but the 23mm prime is a magic lens. Since I've acquired the 23mm I hardly use my 18-55. Maybe it's still the honeymoon phase, but I just love the 23. It renders images in a different way than the 18-55, and the speed/DOF of 1.4 really does make a difference.
1260178
I don't know about this lens specifically, but I would want a wider range lens. I got a 14mm - 200mm lens and find I use that most and a 14mm (pancake) lens that I use to keep the camera in a pocket. I think the lens you suggested has most of the size of the larger one without as much of the range, but I am not a professional photographer.
1239591
Yes. This is my 2nd 18-105 mm lens and I use it for 90% of my photography. I find it fits my needs from family, to nature, to action shots; and I have taken it to Disney.
1671727
I have several L lenses, and my sense is that this lens is not inferior to those lenses. I think it captures excellent images; but, I am not a professional photographer. And I am not rough on lenses; I take great care not to expose any lens to situations that might damage them. In other words, the build quality may or may not be L level, but I will never know. It's great for walking around and getting shots that might otherwise be inaccessible. If you want a lens that is small in size but big in reach, this is it.
2077809
The 24-120 f/4 is a great "walking around" lens. It has all the goodies; Nano Glass, VR2 and fantastic resolution and speed. Works very well with mt D800's 36 megapixel resolution. Great for handheld shots. It's not a lightweight, but, IMHO, relatively easy to carry. You'll not be disappointed with the pictures. If you can, try it with your camera for weight and balance.