One lens vs. multiple lenses

Started Jul 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP trut_maluglist Regular Member • Posts: 286
Re: One lens vs. multiple lenses

EthanP99 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

trut_maluglist wrote:

1) less times changing lenses means lower likelihood of dust getting on the sensor

Not a problem if you are careful. I never had to clean my 1000D, only cleaned 6D once, and only used rocket blower on D600 once. that is 4 years of DSLR ownership and hundreds of lens change.

2) I can change from wide angle to zoom within a second or two. With two lenses, that would take a good 30-60 seconds at best.

Not if your whole session only requires one prime lens.

These photographers are stuck with either having to change lenses all the time or having to stick to a certain type of photography each time they shoot.

Not a problem if:

A, you carry multiple bodies, as many pros in events do. I carry 2 bodies in weddings work.

B, your whole session only needs one lens, like, studio portrait. or real estate interior.

When one of these photographers spends his/her next $1000 on a lens, they do something strange like upgrade their 70-200 to a 70-300 rather than get a lens that covers wide angle and zoom.

The only 70-300 that is an upgrade of 70-200 is the Canon 70-300L. most of the time people upgrade from cheap 70-300 to 70-200.

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?

1, much much better AF

2, significantly more light = lower ISO = better IQ

3, larger aperture = better subject isolation if needed

4, Primes have significantly better sharpness at F3.5-F5.6 range than your 18-200

5, FTM

6, better CA and distortion control

VS

1, slightly less chance of dust

2, convenience

hmmm......

70-300L is not an upgrade from 70-200 2.8 IS USM ABCDEFG

A photographer friend of mine has a 11-16, a 50 prime and a 70-200 F2.8.  I asked him what he would do if he was going to be on foot in a place like Paris for a day and wanted to travel light & didn't want to waste time changing lenses.  He said he would get a 24-70 zoom and use that.  In other words, he's presently ill-equipped for situations like this.

However, if you dropped me off in Paris for a day and I was stuck with just a fixed 50 mm lens, I'd still get a lot of good photos.  After a while, I'd probably get used to it and dismiss shots that would require a 35 mm lens or a 150 mm lens just as I presently dismiss shots which would require a 11 mm lens or an ISO so high that I can't get a decent photo.

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