So do you guys use or subscribe to the idea of a "walk around"

>>3102073
Yes, prime, usually a 28 or 35mm (FF equiv).

I use an mto 1000mm lens for street photography

File: e1e177.jpg (84KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x533px

>>3102073

Yes, it should be a roughly 24-70mm zoom.

That has been the standard since like the 80s.

If you need a prime than it must be a 50mm. Therr is a reason it is refered to as the standard focal length.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	SLT-A77V
Camera Software	SLT-A77V v1.06
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2012:11:26 23:48:20
Exposure Time	8 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Brightness	0.1 EV
Exposure Bias	2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 7290_edited-1.jpg (56KB, 283x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 283x400px

>>3102089
you'll need a flash with that.

>>3102091
hmm I wonder what I should pick as my walk around lens. I got 2 pancakes, neither in 50. A 35 but it is big and heavy, and a 50, but it is a bit bigger than the pancakes

>>3102073
For ym video stuff I use a 24-70mm equivalent parfocal stabilized, for everyhting else a 40mm equivalent

>>3102091
>>3102093
>it must be 50mm

IT was the standard. On full frame. Just to point out that if the person has ASPC, they want a 35 to get that FOV.

>>3102164
Nah like I got a m43 so what I have is
14-42 pancake
20 mm pancake
17.5 mm, but it is f 0.95
cheapo 25 mm panny which is basically the 50mm 1.8 of m43

Like I'd be much more likely to use either pancake or the 35 than the 50 really

File: IMG_1578.jpg (4MB, 2448x2944px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2448x2944px

>>3102073
yeah ... 35 or 50 prime

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 4S
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:25 21:12:04
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.28 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2448
Image Height	2944
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3102091
this is the most aesthetic chink shit that I've ever seen

>>3102073
I use either a 28mm or a 50mm. Obviously when using primes you fall into situations when you wish you had either a longer lens or a wider lens. For 95% of situations I feel comfortable with either prime. Not to mention the size and weight is as good as it gets.

it's all about personal preference I hear people using a 24mm or 21mm as a walk around lens or something like an 85mm. I myself have walked around with an 85mm and while it's not very useful it changes your photography enough to be enjoyable.

>>3102269

Literally a straight Minolta X-300 copy. It is a Seagull (unsure of model number).

They produced the X-300 with the same machines, and just continued to produce it with a new badge once Minolta stopped production.

Went on to the late 90s or early aughts actually.

Meter is prone to failure, and QC was pretty low.

>>3102073
>So do you guys use or subscribe to the idea of a "walk around" lens to be able to use it for everything?
No.

Generally speaking, a 18-35mm Sigma Art or 14 mm + 35 mm prime are covering a lot of situations on APS-C, but it's still just not optimal to use only one or two lenses.

Maybe I'll get lazy like that again at some point, but for now I am not.

>>3102073
What's the point of using a slow 3.5 manual lens?

>>3102433
It takes pictures, anon.

>>3102433
it has a really nice look and feel on B&W film, and it's Ok with colour. It is surprisingly sharp on film but it aint great on the sony though it isn't much worse than my Voightlander 35 color-skopar. All in all it's pretty good for a 65 year old lens.