Walkaround definition

Now Ive seen many threads containing the word "walkaround" when refering to a lens. And when a 'walkaround lens' is in question I get a sense of two different sides. One side is for focal range where as the other side is for speed (aperture).

My opinion is that a 'walkaround' is a lens that can deal with all sorts of different lighting conditions, outdoors to indoors. Bright to low light. Examples would be a f/4 lens with a large focal range compared to a f/2.8 lens with a average focal range.

So what do you view a 'walkaround lens' to be?

Answer the question, then tell your friends "Hey POTN friend, go and vote, its important to the vast growth of photographers and will help the planet with global warming. Also, you'll be given multiple choice so its easy like pleasey cheesey, plus drinks on the house, if you can find someone to pay for ya."
Then we shall dance around a camp fire and sing melodeys of the 1930's.:p

i prefer focal range.
that's why i chose 24-105 f/4L over 17-55 f/2.8

I'm with eble.

By implication a walkaround lens is for 'walking around' and that usually means city streets and holiday style shooting. It also usually means a zoom for convenience because you don't want to be changing lenses all the time. You need a lens that covers wideish to longish, so the 17-70mm Sigma is a great walkaround on a crop or the 24-105mm on a FF. You get buildings in and people and street screnes not problem and both will do Ok indoors if you shoort steady and use your ISO as necessary. So, for me anyway, the 24-105mm IS L and 50mm 1.4 for a FF or 17-70mm Sigma and 30mm 1.4 on a crop both provide an all you need solution for 'walkaround' and general holiday use. It's abouit range and convenience and usable speed. The 17-55mm IS packs in the best of many worlds in some ways but is too short IMO. Depends how one shoots at the end of the day and there isn't a right answer. I could easily use just a 50mm 1.4 for walkaround. You just 'look' differently and move around more.

imo a 'walkabout' lens is of necessity a compromise, and, although I have some good L lenses, my 'Holiday' lens would have to be the Cannon 17-85.1.4-5.6 it has IS which helps with slower shutter speeds in low light situations, and the the IQ is excellent in sunlight, also it weighs 1lb. 2 1/4,oz, which is half the weight of my 27-70L @ 2lb-4oz.
No contest.

In general I see a walkaround as a standard range zoom but I'll walk around with just about anything. I've done so with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 300mm f/4L IS, Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8... Especially if I just got the lens

To me a "walkaround" lens is one that can perform in a variety of lighting conditions and support WA to Portriat focal length. On the crop camera that is the 17-55MM EF-S IS and on a FF I suspect the 20-105MM EF IS is the equal.

However, I often just put my Siogma 30MM f/1.4 on my 30D and spend a delightful day walking around with that combo...zooming with my feet all the time

I suppose it would be a lens that covers a decent focal length. Think about it, if you are going for a "walk around", it would generally be during the day time so you wouldnt really have to worry about need great low light performance.

That being said though, im with Jim. I will just as likely slap on a prime lens on my camera (be it digital or film) and go out shooting for a day with just that.

Both would be nice, but I consider the term to be focal range related. That's why the lens most often on the front of my 30D is my 24-105. Of course, the other reason for that is my bag won't permit my 70-200/4L IS to be on instead...

I don't think of it in terms of aperture at all, and it's not so much a broad focal length range as a normal one.

I tend to think of a "walkaround" lens as a lens that runs from slightly wide to short telephoto....the most important part is that it should bracket the "normal" focal length for the camera (~35mm for APS-C for instance).

The idea in my mind is that the "walkaround" lens is the one you would grab for a days shooting when you could not bring your whole kit and you were not too sure what opportunities might appear.

Having just a telephoto, just an UWA or some odd prime length would be too limiting for most photographers in that situation....hence the walkaround.

Obviously....the smaller and lighter the lens, the faster the aperture, the broader the focal length range....the better. These are all of your tradeoffs in selecting a walkaround lens and generate all the discussion on this board.

'one lens that covers the majority of your photographic needs throughout the day'

Focal length range would be more important to me. But it's also important to consider what truly defines a lens that can handle low-light conditions. There are at least two different camps here...the lenses with IS and the lenses with a very large aperture, so your choice would depend on the subject matter.

Things such as the 24-105mm on a FF is an example of a lens that covers a great focal length range while being able to handle static or slow-action stuff in low light, courtesy of the IS.

I'd tend to think it applies to any lens that is reasonably portable and has a focal range that will cater for general use when walking around with your camera, but without a specific purpose. So any of the WA to short tele zooms would apply as would primes in the medium wide to "standard" FL. Even the ef-s 60mm macro makes a fine "walkaround" lens.

Agree with Wilt. I use my 17-70 about 85% of the time. A walkaround includes the focal lengths you use the majority of the time.

I gotta go with FL. While ppl constantly sy this is good on a crop and this on a FF, I gotta disagree with that. a 17-55 is so short on a crop, I couldn't imagine it on a FF!

I think the 24-105L pretty much the perfect walk around being a constant F4 and having IS

28-135 is nice just not always fast but more FL

17-70 is good for people that don't likle to step back but still have a good range plus it's fast at certain FL

18-200 is the perfect basic consumer walk around, especially in good light conditions since speed isn't affected too much but shade I could imagine suckage. While there are aparent pics taken with the new OS, I believe it'd be a nice lens.

Almost forgot, the 24-70 range is also good for a constant F2.8 but I'd rather have the 17-70 cause being a walk around, will you always need F2.8?

As for me, I used to walk around with my 70-300 APO. My most used lens no doubt and I regret selling it because it's smaller than the 70-200 and I used it a lot for random outings. The 18-50 ain't bad, but I only carry when I know I'll be in close quarters.

If it weren't for such a small difference, I would imagine the 50-150 be right for me, but not everyone else.

I think that covers most.