One lens vs. multiple lenses

Started Jul 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP trut_maluglist Regular Member • Posts: 287
Re: One lens vs. multiple lenses

Mark B. wrote:

trut_maluglist wrote:

Mark B. wrote:

trut_maluglist wrote:

YRUNVS wrote:

trut_maluglist wrote:

Why on earth would one want to carry around several lenses when an 18-200 (or perhaps 18-135) would cover most of the types of photography they do and would eliminate the necessity of changing lenses all the time?

While a superzoom may cover all of the focal lengths I may want to shoot in a given day, or week, the 70-300 I use to shoot pictures at a mud run likely won't deliver what I am looking for at the pub later when I am shooting 1.8 1/60th a second and 5-digit ISO. I tend to shoot more with my 85mm prime even though I have that FL covered by two zooms. I like the rendering on my 105 2.5p enough to use it regularly even though it is manual focus, which is often more of an inconvenience than switching lenses. Horses for courses. If a superzoom allows you to get the shots you want in the style and/or rendering you like then that's good for you and saves you some cash and hassle. Others may prefer a different route, and if it works for them, good for them as well.

If I'm shooting photos of a mud run (rodeo or auto race) where I shoot primarily at 100 mm or more, I still like the flexibility of being able to get that wide angle shot to mix in with all the close up shots.

Imagine going into the paddock area at the races. You switch to your wide angle lens to get photos of the cars. Then in the distance you see a prize photo opportunity which requires a 150 mm focal length and will be there for only 10-15 seconds. I'll get that photo while others won't.

A pro getting paid for shots is going to carry 2-3 lenses to ensure the IQ is the best it can be. Trust me, they're going to get the shot.

And a smart pro would have each lens mounted to a different camera so he doesn't have to change lenses.

Yes, that's what I meant but wasn't very clear on that.

I'm not a pro, but I do strive to have fun shooting photos while getting a great variety of shots wherever I go. I'm not one who can justify both paying for and carrying around extra lenses to get the best possible IQ. If you give me $2000 for my photography hobby, I'd sooner spend it on traveling to a place I haven't been to than on more lenses.

Understood. But it sounds like you're trying to say the IQ you're getting is just as good as shorter zooms or primes; it's not. Obviously you're ok with the compromises, which of course are limited by your budget. There's really no need to justify your choice. If you're happy with it, great. Just understand that other hobbyists may not be satisfied with the compromise of a superzoom lens and are also justified in their choice to spend more on lenses.

Mark

Thanks for the response.  I don't believe I ever claimed the IQ I get with my 18-200 is as good as it would be with a prime lens.

The question I was really trying to ask is why do a lot of these beginners - whose standards aren't even as high as mine - get multiple lenses when an 18-200 will be sufficient and offer them more flexibility?  Are the sales people taking advantage of them by selling them more than what they really want?  I think a good example is the marketing effort that went behind selling digital cameras based on MP.  Newbies would want the camera with the most MP while having no clue that the amount of MP they were getting was overkill.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow