How many lenses do you really need?

ShiftyPhotos

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
For "keen amature" use, as I susspect most of us are, how many lenses do we really need?

1. Landscape
2. Portrait
3. Macro
4. Telephoto

Do we really need more than this or am I missing something?
What would you idealy have in your kit bag so you have a lens for all occasions?
 
For "keen amature" use, as I susspect most of us are, how many
lenses do we really need?
Do we really need more than this or am I missing something?
You'd have to define "we". People are so different!
What would you idealy have in your kit bag so you have a lens for
all occasions?
  1. 1. 17-55 2.8, 28-70 2.8, 24 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 50-135 2.8, 180 2.8
(that would be a tad heavy, I know). Otherwise:
  1. 2. 24 2.8, 35 1.4, 85 1.8 50-135 2.8
I currently have 28-70 2.8 (Tokina), 50 1.4 (Nikkor), 100 2.8 (Tokina)

--
Cheers,

Alex
http://rundadar.smugmug.com
 
Well that certainly is four prime areas of photography.

Where does Sports fit in? Lets say that I have a son or daughter in sports and maybe they are really into sports. I might need a lens for basketball, played indoors in a gymnasium, and maybe another lens entirely for football or baseball, played outdoors in the sunlight. But what if the baseball is played during the day, and the football is always played at night? Yikes I need another lens. One of my daughters played softball and volleyball. For softball I would want at least two lenses; one when she was close to me like at the plate, and one when she was out in the field. Volley ball was indoors so there is lens number three.

I’m into wildlife and nature. I would like a nice Macro for close-up shots of insects and maybe small flowers. A lens to take close-ups of flowers and larger insects, lizards, snakes etc. Haven’t really decided yet on the lenses, but we are looking at least two. I also have a passion for birds, now bird pictures fall into roosting birds, those sitting on a branch or something and BIFs (Birds In Flight). Sometimes you need a really long lens, maybe 500mm, even 600mm to get a good bird sitting some distance away, BIFs look fantastic, but you need a very fast focusing lens to keep the bird in focus, and BIFs generally aren’t as far away, although something like a soaring hawk might be. I could easily justify a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, a 300mm f/4 with both a TC-14E and a TC-17E, and a 600mm f/4. We are definitely talking “money is no object here”.

San Diego is a beautiful place with many historic places and beautiful vistas, and lets not forget the seashore. For Landscapes I would want something wide and sharp like a 14mm or 16mm prime, but if I’m closer to the subject, like one of the Missions or the Star of India (a 150 year old sailing vessel), I’d probably want something like a 17-55mm.

I use my 50mm f/1.8 for a lot of different things, but if I wanted to do portraits I think I would want the 85mm f/1.8.

Then there are things I’m not into at the moment (but who knows when the bug will bite) like Night Photography, Cars, Motorcycles, & Boats (Static and moving), Trains, Planes (both on the ground and in the air), Infrared, Street People, Still Life, Underwater, Stage & Concert.

So I could easily, right now, justify 9 lenses and a couple of TCs and probably a couple of CP filters, that would go to 13 lenses if my Daughter was still playing sports.

--
Brooks

http://www.bmiddleton.smugmug.com

I daresay one profits more by the mistakes one makes off one's own bat than by doing the right thing on somebody's else advice.
— W. Somerset Maugham
 
  1. 1. 17-55 2.8, 28-70 2.8, 24 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 50-135 2.8, 180 2.8
(that would be a tad heavy, I know).
Im curious, what exactly about the 28-70mm 2.8 and 24 2.8 are so special that you need to weigh yourself down with them when you already have the 17-55mm in your pack? All I see now is really bad redundancy, no offense...

--

'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many moments that take your breath away.' - A friend
 
Best answer:
One more than you have.

That answer often never changes for the "enthusiastic" photographer who has a keen interest in taking his hoppy "one step further".
 
  1. 1. 17-55 2.8, 28-70 2.8, 24 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 50-135 2.8, 180 2.8
(that would be a tad heavy, I know).
Im curious, what exactly about the 28-70mm 2.8 and 24 2.8 are so
special that you need to weigh yourself down with them when you
already have the 17-55mm in your pack? All I see now is really bad
redundancy, no offense...
None taken :) For what I like to shoot 28-70 is more useful than 17-55. This long list was only meant as an "ULTIMATE" collection of lenses.

As I've said later, for a real walkaround kit, I could do with 28-70 2.8 + 50-150 2.8 or with 24+50+85 or 17-55+85 or 24+50-150.

Or just with 28-70 + 50 1.4 + 100 (that's what I have). I am a happy shooter.
--
'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many
moments that take your breath away.' - A friend
--
Cheers,

Alex
http://rundadar.smugmug.com
 
There are many lenses that I want (eg. 17-55, 85 1.4d, 18-200vr, 12-24)

What is stopping me from buying these lenses is that I don't have enough money! And lenses are expensive! So I'm happy with the 3 lenses that I have and make the most out of them.

--
Once a Nikonian, always a Nikonian.
 
For "keen amature" use, as I susspect most of us are, how many
lenses do we really need?

1. Landscape
2. Portrait
3. Macro
4. Telephoto

Do we really need more than this or am I missing something?
What would you idealy have in your kit bag so you have a lens for
all occasions?
It all depends on you, your budget, your expectations, ect. There are alot of folks that do only one specific thing, are not picky, or do multiple things but are not picky and get by just fine with only one lens. For some 10 lenses aren't enough. For some 2 is 1 more than they need. It just depends on the user.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.
 
Ok then. Lets say there a five groups of photography:

1. Landscape
2. Portrait
3. Macro
4. Wildlife (long range/ telephoto)
5. Sports

If you had a lens for each area, what would be your choise of lens, within a reasonable budget, say less than £500 for the first 3 groups and less than £1000 for the final 2.
 
I dont really clasify my lenses, but I find the following does everything I need

All Nikon

20mm f/2.8
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
60mm f/2.8 macro
85mm f/1.8
105 f/2D-DC
180mm f/2.8
300mm f/4

this plus a 1.4 TC is what I use

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 
Ok then. Lets say there a five groups of photography:

1. Landscape
There is not one superwide zoom I've seen or tried that I'm impressed with. Frankly I don't see one as a "must have" for the way I like too shoot.

Personally I like feel pretty happy doing what landscape I do with either the Nikon 50mm 1.4D or 85mm 1.8D.
2. Portrait
Nikon 85mm 1.8D. Alot of folks will tell you it's a bit long on digital. I quess that depends on how you compose though. Frankly there isn't one Nikon 50 that I feel captures fine detail as good as the 85mm does. Portrait (for me) is defined by sharp eyes and a narrow zone of focus. As good as even the 50mm 1.4D is, it's not as good. The 50mm 2.0AI is much better but still not in the same league.
This is where the choice would become hard for me. Keep in mind that I have more macro lenses than anything else. If I were only going to have one it would either be the Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro or Tamron 90mm 2.8. As much as I love some of the older macro lenses they do not offer automation on all bodies. If you are using a D200 then let me know if you need a general purpose lens or want a specific effect and I'll probably change my choice but for any other body I'd choose the Nikon for ease of use and build or the Tamron for it's rendition at maximum apeture. Both are short enough that they can be used off handheld. Honestly though, either is so good that it's hard to go wrong either way.
4. Wildlife (long range/ telephoto)
Honestly I don't really do any wildlife so I'm not a good person too give advice on that. I've used some longer primes but still keep coming back to my 85mm 1.8D for quality.
5. Sports
I don't do sports either. The closest I do is some low light in school auditoriums. For that I use my 85mm 1.8D and 10.5 2.8 DX Fisheye for overall shots.
If you had a lens for each area, what would be your choise of lens,
within a reasonable budget, say less than £500 for the first 3
groups and less than £1000 for the final 2.
I don't know how all of these equate to pounds but I'll say that I'm often only carrying 3 lenses and find myself covered for the majority of what I see.

1. 60mm 2.8D Micro. A warning concerning it. It has such contrast and sharpness that it will make it hard for you too use many lesser lenses afterwards.
2. 85mm 1.8D. My sharpest non-macro prime.

3. 45mm 2.8P. Not a lens I'd recommend unless you're familiar (and happy with) manual focus on your particular body. If you are then it's the ultimate modern body cap. Killer contrast, sharpness even wide open, good color, and a unique signature. If you aren't into manual focus then I'd recommend the 50mm 1.4D. It offers a few advantages over the 45mm 2.8P (the f/1.4 maximum apeture being the biggest) but you have to put up with the marginal build of it in return. As much as it get's used by most folks though, harldy an issue.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.
 
For travel, most used (by me). All Nikkor unless noted.
12-24 and 24-120VR
Occasioinally the 10.5 fisheye when I have a really wide subject.
20mm for general stuff, but when I need wide and speed 30mm 1.4
Macro stuff a 50mm Sigma
Very sharp medium stuff 50mm 1.4
Sports in bright light 80-400VR, less light 80-200 2.8.

Before I retired from auto racing work I used the following.

Nikkor 500 f4 borrowed from NPS (and my own 500 and/or 1000mm Mirror for special shots).

My "normal lenses" were (sold to collectors) a 400 f4 and 600 5.6 Kilfitt.

Pete Biro
 
Well if I understand the original poster (Keen amateur) correctly I wouldn't suggest all those great lenses. All of those lenses are perfect lenses however will be overkill for such use.

IMHO I would go with a single zoom lens the 18-200 Vr with either an extension tube or simply a closeup filter on it.
Scenery: 18 mm is nice enoufh
Portrait: not the sharpest lense but would do it with a bit of sharpening in PP
sports: for an amateur would do it

indoor: Vr is extreemly usefull unless you are comparing to 2.8 lenses which get more expensive

Wildlife: I did struggle a bit with wildlife however it is nice to develop your stalking capability and learn how to approach animals without scaring them.

tele: 200 on digital becomes a 300 and it's good enough even if it'll be 5.6 at the end. Anyway yo uwill not be zooming to 200 in dark conditions.

Macro: it will not be atrue macro but will be able to give very good closeups which are even better with the closup lense even if a bit soft.

--
Sony P7
Nikon coolpix 5700
Nikon D70s 18-200VR 50mm1.4 SB600
 
I don't know how many I need but I have become a KEH used lens junkie. They always seem to have an interesting lens for not much money. (Please do not tell me I would be better off with a couple of expensive lenses, I like the variety and my 8x10's come out fine.)

I got the 18-55 Kit lens and a Tamron 70-300 when I bought my d50. I have since tapped KEH for a 90mm 2.8 sigma Macro. ( Gets you far enough away not to scare the butterflys) a 50mm 1.8 Nikon ( Last years HS basketball lens and this years new Grandson Lens.) 28-200 Sigma (Poor mans 18-200, Does great job at parties and giong on car rides) Tamron 1.4x (use with the 70-300) and on it's way a 28-70 2.8 Sigma 2.8 ( This years HS BB lens). If I hit the lottery I would probably buy the Nikon Versions of most of these but until then it sure is fun choosing a couple of lenses and going on a shoot. (I really do not get the 18-200 one lens crowd) Take care all!
--
Check my Photo Blog
http://parisea.blogspot.com/
 
18-70mm and 70-300mm zooms (equivalent 28mm to 450mm)

50/f1.8 and 28/f.18 fast primes (for low light and/or shallow DOF needs)
 
The real answer is one, thats what most people have on their point and shoot and are quite happy with it. Any other answer depends on the individual.
--
Bluenose
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top