I don't want to go too off-topic, but where do you guys live that has camera thieves everywhere? Have any of you actually been mugged for your camera? I've heard of gear being stolen out of parked cars, but never an actual mugging for the many years I've been on the forums.

And who is going to mug you for a Pentax?



/joke

[Sandy Hancock]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but where do you guys live that has camera thieves everywhere? Have any of you actually been mugged for your camera? I've heard of gear being stolen out of parked cars, but never an actual mugging for the many years I've been on the forums.

I don't think it's too off-topic in a thread about urban gear choices.
And I agree: I have openly carried DSLR's through Rome, Buenos Aires (twice), Venice, London (twice), Paris and several other crowded cities with a fair population of ne'er-do-wells (not to mention Sydney and Melbourne!), and have never felt threatened.

[texandrews]

I see you favor primes, but I'd go with the 28-105. Terrific lens that punches above its weight.

[pres589]

A lens that I used on my film cameras that has really surprised me is my Tokina 19-35 f3.5~4.5. I could definitely see using it on a K-1 as a walk-around zoom. I'd give up a mm on the wide end if it went to 40 on the long end; that'd be an excellent zoom for full frame use.

The controls are pretty light, common for "consumer" zooms, but I don't have a hard time nailing focus on my manual bodies. Build is decent, it's light weight, and it was really inexpensive. What's not to like? I was in a few cities in July and brought just this lens and my M 50 f1.7 and really didn't miss not having longer or faster glass save for just a couple of night shots where I should have found my Platypod and cable release instead of hand holding.

[klkitchens]

Thanks everyone. As I mentioned, I did not want to use a short zoom (as I always end up doing), but give myself the best opportunity with a single prime lens. The photography was a secondary purpose to exploring the town with my wife, so I definitely didn't want to trouble with multiple lenses to experiment. If I wanted to that there was no need to ask here, lol.

I ended up with the 35mm for the task at hand. On the trip though I took the 24 as well as the 50 to have. I also knew I'd get a chance at some wildlife the next day, so the BIGMA went along in the car.

Will process and get some images shared.

I don't think it's too off-topic in a thread about urban gear choices.
And I agree: I have openly carried DSLR's through Rome, Buenos Aires (twice), Venice, London (twice), Paris and several other crowded cities with a fair population of ne'er-do-wells (not to mention Sydney and Melbourne!), and have never felt threatened.

The title of the thread includes the phrase, "small town", so I'm guessing that international camera thieves aren't going to be much of a problem.

In my experience, where the population density in the area you want to shoot in is sparse, a lot of what you want to capture isn't the people necessarily, but people against interesting backgrounds, or at night when there's interesting lighting, or reflections from rain water or such. In such cases, I go for a telephoto - sometimes I use a 100mm macro lens, or a 70-200.

When you do want to take pictures of interesting humans, you need to be closer, so a standard or mild wide angle is a good thing. One thing to consider is that the closer you get to the people you intend to photograph, the more people will act funny and give you questioning looks because the feel they're being stalked and don't know why. (If I get that close, I ask permission.) If you want to get into people's faces, the 35 would be best. I went out to an "outdoor mall" with a KP and the 55mm, and I thought that worked really well. There were people milling about, which increased toward lunch-time, but not crowds, so that was sort of a humans plus ambiance, neither category of subjects predominating.

So the more crowded the scene, the wider the angle needed, the more sparse the population, the longer the reach. I reckon that's what it comes down to for me.

[JimJohnson]

If you insist on a prime - 35mm. The K-1 is hardly an inconspicuous camera body. Most people are going to notice it, even with a pancake 40mm - especially in a small town. I should know as I live in a rural small town that fills with tourists. Me? I agree with @texandrews. If I only want one body with one lens on my walk-about, I am most likely to choose the 28-105. The range of photographic subjects that grab attention in a small town is often greater than you find in mid-to-large cities. The streetscapes feel less homogenous in small towns.

[fs999]

I use often the FA 35mm F2 or the smallest DA 40mm F2.8 XS

[mlag]

Small or big town, if the streets are narrower and buildings tighter build, I would prefer the wider lens....
If streets are wide lanes, open parks, ... a slightly longer focal can be more interesting.

[Jonathan Mac]

The FA 50/2.8 macro seems ideal. On APS-C I would have recommended the DA 35mm Limited but it seems you're on FF so a 50mm is the most versatile prime you'll find, especially with macro capabilities. You can never be bored with a normal macro lens on your camera: there is ALWAYS something to photograph.

[kanyck]

I'd second 43mm. Incredible PQ, lightweight, "natural" angle. It's been stuck to my K-1 and stays on some 95% of the time...

[Lord Lucan]

The FA 50/2.8 macro seems ideal.

You need a macro lens for street photography?

[New Englander]

I’d be happy with my 18-135…

[Jonathan Mac]

You need a macro lens for street photography?

The OP never mentioned street photography, that's something other contributors added in later.

It's always better to have the possibility for macro, or at least very close focus, for the reason I previously stated.

[Lord Lucan]

The OP never mentioned street photography

He said "Small town walkaround lens". Sounds like street photography to me.