Reading mode: Light Dark

How many Lenses do you carry at one time when facing the unknown?

Go to last post
When I shot canon it was 16/35 + 24/70 + 70/200 all f:2.8 but I was young then (last week) and could carry that weight, now it will most likely be 35 and 85

sometimes 35 and 70-200 f:4

and if I have an idea of what I might run into I would add either a 24 or a 300mm (the new super light one, as soon as I can find one). On very rare occasions both.
 
FBoneOne said:
When I shot canon it was 16/35 + 24/70 + 70/200 all f:2.8 but I was young then (last week) and could carry that weight, now it will most likely be 35 and 85

sometimes 35 and 70-200 f:4

and if I have an idea of what I might run into I would add either a 24 or a 300mm (the new super light one, as soon as I can find one). On very rare occasions both.
Click to expand...
+1 on the new 300 f4. I have the Sigma 120-300 2.8 because it has a 300 focal length at f4. But I never carry it unless I absolutely know I am going to use it. But if I had the new 300 Vr f4, which is half the weight and size of the old 300 f4, I might just put that in my walk around kit.
 
BobSC said:
Stacey_K said:
didn't own a single zoom lens before I started shooting digital and especially with my 4X5 film camera, I was very selective about what I shot as it was $$$$ for each shutter pull.
Click to expand...
Not to mention all the time loading the film into the holders and processing the negatives!! I did 4x5 too for a while.
Click to expand...
I still own and use a 4x5" field camera, with 90mm, 120mm (macro), 135mm, 180mm and 270mm lenses. I even have a few sheets of Velvia quick load left in my freezer. But my last attempt to use it "to face the unknown" was more than a bit of a hash. I drove to Rhododendron State Park in New Hampshire on what was supposed to be a peak weekend for blooms. I hiked about two miles with the full kit (including almost 9lbs of tripod and head), saw exactly 2 flowers, and missed focus on both. Grump.
 
Interesting thread.

Personally if I'm headed out for landscape work, I kind of have a general sense of what lens range I'll need, yet I'll still cover my bases, which for me means a 20/24/35/50/135 kit. I might pick a smaller subset depending on what I'm facing. Probably no coincidence that I've spent the most time with those lengths in picking the very best options image quality wise for those lengths. But there are times when I just don't know, and that's when the tried and true 24-70 comes along; it may not be "the best", but it can deliver professional results between 28 and 60mm at distance every day and generally just doesn't let me down in any grand way, and there simply are times where I need the zoom flexibility. Then of course if I'm returning to the spot later, I'll know what I need and decide on which primes I'll bring.

-m
 
GlobalGuyUSA said:
For work, obviously you carry the lenses you need. For very targeted work, or pleasure, you might carry one lens. But -- how many lenses do you carry at one time, when you're not totally sure what you're going to shoot (and yet its not for work)? And which ones are they? Do you still just grab 1 trusty prime? Or do you grab the trinity? Or what?

I'm talking about your "Comfort Lenses," not necessarily for anything special (major travel is special).

I'm indecisive, so I always tend to carry 3.

[I gravitate to the 28-300 (is this a true "anxiety" lens? haha), the 50/1.8D, and the 20/2.8, when I just have no idea whatsoever what I'll be doing. As much as I don't really like it, I consider my 50/1.8D a comfort lens. I almost never use it; but just having it around makes me feel better when I'm carrying f/2.8s and darker. If I have any idea what I'll want to focus one, then I almost always will choose something other than these lenses; but facing the unknown -- those are my comfort lenses.]
Click to expand...
 
Three lenses:
  • Wide angle: either 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 or 14mm f/2.8
  • Normal range: either 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.2
  • Tele-photo: either 70-200mm f/2.8 or 105mm f/2.8
Depending on how much weight I'm willing to carry.

--
________________________________________
Flicker page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ruimc/
 
Last edited:
heulwen said:
Charleston and New Orleans, on the other hand, are new to me. Hence I'll take along the 24-120, to be able to shoot wider when needed and also to have that slight tele.
Click to expand...
Wide is good in both cities. In New Orleans you also want to consider low light.
 
Stacey_K said:
At least for me, if I do take a zoom, I just end up with "the obvious shot" that has probably been taken many times before from where I am standing. One (or maybe two) primes, forces me to look for a unique shot based on that focal length. Some would call it limiting, I call it enabling. It took me several years to finally understand that zoom lenses were part of the reason my photography had gotten stale/boring. When I went back to shooting with primes, I found my photography overall improved greatly.
Click to expand...
 
BobSC said:
heulwen said:
Charleston and New Orleans, on the other hand, are new to me. Hence I'll take along the 24-120, to be able to shoot wider when needed and also to have that slight tele.
Click to expand...
Wide is good in both cities. In New Orleans you also want to consider low light.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the heads up! I'm usually not a wide-kind of gal, always prefer the tele end, but I do know that I want to capture some streetscapes, even if they end up being snapshot-ish due to me not being that wide angle gal. Hah.
 
T O Shooter said:
Stacey_K said:
At least for me, if I do take a zoom, I just end up with "the obvious shot" that has probably been taken many times before from where I am standing. One (or maybe two) primes, forces me to look for a unique shot based on that focal length. Some would call it limiting, I call it enabling. It took me several years to finally understand that zoom lenses were part of the reason my photography had gotten stale/boring. When I went back to shooting with primes, I found my photography overall improved greatly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
T O Shooter said:
Stacey_K said:
At least for me, if I do take a zoom, I just end up with "the obvious shot" that has probably been taken many times before from where I am standing. One (or maybe two) primes, forces me to look for a unique shot based on that focal length. Some would call it limiting, I call it enabling. It took me several years to finally understand that zoom lenses were part of the reason my photography had gotten stale/boring. When I went back to shooting with primes, I found my photography overall improved greatly.

--
Stacey
Click to expand...
I read an article a couple of years ago, where a top landscape / wildlife photography magazine, with some of the best photographers in their fields as contributors, did a poll. To a photographer they all used zooms.

Personally, I see an image I want to capture and find a position that I want to shoot it from that gives me the perspective I want. Behind me might be a hole of water; in front of me a ditch. If you step forward or back you lose the perspective. A zoom allows you to maintain it. I was out last weekend and limited myself to the 135 on the D750. I wouldn't change to the 70-200II, but it cramps the shooting more than inhances it. I got the shots I wanted ( mostly ) but being able to slightly zoom out would have been ideal.

I think a little snobbery comes along with the "I shooting primes", much the same as saying you don't shoot 35mm format, but rather MF. Not you personally, but in general.

And other than confining yourself this article dispels the belief that you actually get much better images with primes over zooms, expensive lenses over cheap lenses and so on. Even though two of my favorite lenses are my 135AI and my 300 2.8VR.

https://photographylife.com/why-16-megapixels-when-i-could-have-50#more-102064

And a zoom is just a whole bunch of primes in one lens body.

--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
Click to expand...
I got rid of my Sigma 35 Art. As sharp as it was, I prefer the versatility of my zooms. Composition and good post-processing are priorities to me, and zooms help me frame the shot, particularly when I'm hiking a trail hugging the edge of a cliff, where lateral movement doesn't help one better frame the vista that spreads itself before one's feet.

But 2.8 zooms are heavy! :(

Oh, and I've seen Paul Richman's fantastic shots, taken with the 24-70, 70-200, and even the Canon 28-300, on bodies as humble as yesteryear's D3.
 
Last edited:
Rich Rosen said:
buybuybuy said:
All those people carrying 28mm and 85mm primes are hauling too much weight. For true mobility, you need Schneider's "iPro Lens System. " It gives your iPhone all the features of the DSLR--except the weight. And all those lenses--the fisheye, macro, telephoto, and wide-angle--together probably weigh only a few grams. The lenses can even double as a tripod mount.

Ten years hence, professional wedding photogs will probably be using only that.
Click to expand...
So is that what you use when going out to shoot...an iPhone?
Click to expand...
Its as good as anyone else's answer though.

I guess if I was pressed for a "compact" option I wouldn't use my phone, though.

It'd be a Canon S95+ in that kind of pinch; but this thread isn't about compacts.

Still... it is a LENS system he mentioned, technically, haha.

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy
 
Last edited:
T O Shooter said:
Stacey_K said:
At least for me, if I do take a zoom, I just end up with "the obvious shot" that has probably been taken many times before from where I am standing. One (or maybe two) primes, forces me to look for a unique shot based on that focal length. Some would call it limiting, I call it enabling. It took me several years to finally understand that zoom lenses were part of the reason my photography had gotten stale/boring. When I went back to shooting with primes, I found my photography overall improved greatly.

--
Stacey
Click to expand...
I read an article a couple of years ago, where a top landscape / wildlife photography magazine, with some of the best photographers in their fields as contributors, did a poll. To a photographer they all used zooms.
Click to expand...
If a person is a pro then doing things the way pros do them probably works. But pros should have better skills than the rest of us. Adams said that once you have more than one lens you never have the right one on the camera.

Photography is a multivariable analysis. Even without a zoom there are infinite possibilities for any given situation
 
PHXAZCRAIG said:
I use this combo most of the time when I travel. Thinktank Speed Racer waist bag holding D810 with grip, 16-35f4, 24-70f2.8, and 80-400g. I sometimes throw in a 1.4tc for wildlife.

The 16-35 is as wide as I can get, because my 14-24 won't fit with the other lenses. The 80-400g is more versatile to me than my 70-200f2.8. I'm built around the 24-70, which gets a lot of use.
Click to expand...
 
heulwen said:
T O Shooter said:
Stacey_K said:
At least for me, if I do take a zoom, I just end up with "the obvious shot" that has probably been taken many times before from where I am standing. One (or maybe two) primes, forces me to look for a unique shot based on that focal length. Some would call it limiting, I call it enabling. It took me several years to finally understand that zoom lenses were part of the reason my photography had gotten stale/boring. When I went back to shooting with primes, I found my photography overall improved greatly.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Felts said:
T O Shooter said:
Felts said:
Felts said:
And a zoom is just a whole bunch of primes in one lens body.

--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
Click to expand...
How many zooms you you have at f1.4?

--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/61249924@N06/
Website: http://andyfelthamphotography.com
Click to expand...
I have primes for 1.4. But in reality, the slice of "in focus" that I generally wish to have, when I'm going for that slice of focus look, I can accomplish at 2.8.

--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
Click to expand...
1.4 isn't just for the 'slice of focus'...

I'd also rather be shooting with a prime at ISO 1600 @ 1.4 than a zoom at 6400 @ 2.8.
Click to expand...
Rather limiting isn't it. You have to have a subject where 1.4 works. I sincerely doubt that fellows shooting 1.4 primes spend their time at 1.4
Felts said:
Lightweight prime vs heavy zoom

You said you're not getting this. I'm giving you reasons why people choose primes over zooms;
Click to expand...
The 1.4 at 1600 to avoid shooting at 2.8 is certainly not one that would convince me. And you don't have to convince me; that wasn't what I was disputing. See below. But now that I see you're a Df shooter, I'm surprised you're not ripping the AF off and trying to convert them to non-AI to keep in the theme of things. And btw and FWIW I do own a Df.
Felts said:
irrespective of 'seeing' a shot before you raise the camera to your eye, or any 'prime snobbery' that you perceive.

I get why a load of landscape pros would choose a zoom.
Click to expand...
I was talking landscape and wildlife. I shoot a 300 2.8VR so I guess factoring in the TCs I shoot BIF mainly with 300, 420, 510 and 600mm primes. But if that 150-600 Sigma Sport could have been made as sharp as the 300 and AF like the 300 than hello 150-600.
Felts said:
They will probably all be shooting at f8-11 using a tripod...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Certainly not for wildlife.
Felts said:
So many of the advantages of a prime are null and void. But there's a load of other types of photography other than landscape, where primes are likely a better fit.
Click to expand...
No kidding. Not my point.
Felts said:
Now do you get it?
Click to expand...
You didn't get it - see below.
Felts said:
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/61249924@N06/
Website: http://andyfelthamphotography.com
Click to expand...
You misunderstood; maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. This is what I don't get. Quoting Stacey:

"I've found I come home with better images if I limit my focal length choices to just one or two.

I now rarely go out, when I have no specific idea of what I will be shooting, with a zoom anymore. I reserve my zooms for event shooting.

At least for me, if I do take a zoom, I just end up with "the obvious shot" that has probably been taken many times before from where I am standing. One (or maybe two) primes, forces me to look for a unique shot based on that focal length. Some would call it limiting, I call it enabling.

It took me several years to finally understand that zoom lenses were part of the reason my photography had gotten stale/boring. When I went back to shooting with primes, I found my photography overall improved greatly.

I'm not saying that's not how it is for Stacey, and that's some inherent deficiency on her part, but I'm calling it bull crap for that being true zooms vs primes. If you can shoot with a prime you can shoot with a zoom and vice versa. Just some trade-offs, but certainly doesn't limited creative freedom or quality of image. Again, bull crap to even suggest it.

--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse - Bruce Cockburn
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top