Originally posted by TrailRunner Really appreciate you guys taking the time to address this question :-)
To give you a sense of what my shooting style is like:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/28805392@N02/
I'm no pro, just a newbie enthusiast. But, I take my shooting seriously and aspire to be as good as possible.
Thinking more today, I think the form factor is actually quite important when it comes to running. I've been using a Sigma 10-20 a lot on the trail, and it's done pretty well, though it's not particularly fast. I run a lot at dawn (for a few reasons, early light shooting being among them), and so something faster than f4 would be nice. My 10-20 is big though, and challenging to run with in a small pack.
Leaning toward the DA HD 21 for small weight/form factor, while also producing sharp images, fast AF, and (hopefully) good bokeh. Had been thinking of a 20-40, as it's not too big, is faster than the 10-20 and is WR. But...seems like it's pretty inconsistent in it's reviews. Then there's the HD 15.... ;-)
While on the mountain, I try to use f8 and up for depth of field (to get as much in as possible). Color rendering a BIG deal.
Back in town, I like to get that non-busy bokeh when shooting family. Color rendering a BIG deal here too. Don't like flat color shots, and prefer getting as much as possible in that regard out of lens vs. trying to make something happen in PP.
I'm hoping to find something that moves between family and mountain well without changing lenses. Don't mind moving around for/with a prime a bit.
Additional thoughts? :-)
Your needs are potentially quite different between mountain and town and honestly not much explained.
My understanding is that for classical headshoot and head and shoulders portraits, you are already covered with your 50mm. This guy should do enough to blur the background.
Almost any lense would do in the mountains to shoot at f/8. Except if you want to frame the sun in the frame where you would need quite good flare resistance. 20-40 or a nice limited prime would help there. You might need to shoot at larger apperture at down/dusk and that would work for a wide angle to still keep all in focus, not so with a longer focal. The question would be what range of focals you really want? Something more of wide angle ? Or would you need also a tele?
At town what would you want, again? Is it the same requirement for wide portraits outdoor? Same very large framing we see for your mountain shoot when you take somebody running? Or just a full body portrait with no much arround? I mean if you want to get a large framing and still blur somewhat the background, this would be really f/1.4 or at worst f/2 you need and more likely a wide angle.
If you accept to take some distance with the subject, the 50mm could do it again and you have it already.
From your quite fuzy requirements (sorry, you just gave a few example spoke of mountain shoots, spoke a bit or portraiture in town, but not very precise if they are still need to be wide or in general how far you'd want to go on wide or tele ends) I would think that a lense like 16-50 f/2.8 would be great compromise. It would not be that bigger than 16-85. It would cover all your needs for wide shoots at f/8 but also to open more when light is declining at f/4 or even f/2.8 it would work well if the subject isn't too near in the mountains to still keep everything in focus at the wide angle. It is also WR and I think has great colors. This is not light through.
It should work reasonably well for wide portrait too with a blured background is you don't frame too large. It would also help a lot indoors to gather more light in general.
Alternative are:
- 20-40: small light, not that sharp but ok, great colors. Not very wide and a bit limited in apperture to blur background.
- 18-35 sigma f/1.8. Ultra sharp, lot of light gathering. More than you need for mountain, maybe helpfull to blur background if you still want large portraits in town. Carefull: huge/heavy and some issue with calibrating autofocus.
- 17-50 from sigma/tamron are not WR but far less expensive.
DA21 would not blur the background much in town (or not at all). FA28 f/2.8, FA31, sigma 35 f/1.4 etc I'am not sure they are wide enough. You are quite unclear for your need in town. In general your didn't specify much what you wanted to achieve here so advising any prime is very difficult. A small prime could help, but the DSLR would still be big you know you may need to compromize quality, wide apperture or zooming in the end. Honestly for a very light package and more for wide angle you'd have been better server with a small hybrid camera like the Fuji, than a DSLR.
But really express fully what you are after and also maybe consider you have different needs and so differents lenses might be needed.