Too much overlap

[Tannin]

It has always seemed strange to me that the standard lenses have so much overlap.

Take a typical kit in full frame lenses. It is likely to be something like:

16-35, 24-70, and 70-200

or

16-35, 24-105, 100-400

in crop,

10-18, 17-55, and 55-250

In Micro Four Thirds, the holy trinity is

7-14, 12-40, 40-150

Notice the pattern here.

Notice how neatly the longer lenses match: the 27-70 and the 70-200 dovetail together, with no gaps and no wasteful overlap. Ditto the 24-105 and the 100-400; ditto again the 12-40 and the 40-150 (if you are used to full frame, think of those two as a 24-80/2.8 and an 80-300/2.8). The only exception is the 1.6 crop set, where the 55-250 is a cheap lens better matched with the plastic 18-55 and not worth of comparison to the high quality 10-22 and 17-55 units. Presumably, Canon decided that crop buyers could make do with full frame 70-200s if they wanted something better, or else take a 15-85 instead of the 17-55.

Now notice how poorly the shorter lenses match. In every case, you have wasteful overlap. The overlap between (for example) 35 and 24 makes one or both lenses heavier, physically larger, more expensive, and makes it more difficult to achieve ideal image quality. And it serves very little useful purpose.

For example, I have the 16-35/4 and 24-105/4. Result: my beautiful 16-35 seldom gets used unless I want to go shorter than 24mm. I could use it for shots at e.g.) 30mm, but generally don't. I just use the 24-105. But I still have to carry that bulky, heavy 16-35 around anyway, ready for the times when 24mm isn't enough.

It has always seemed weird to me that Canon don't make either something like a 14-22 to match up with 24-105 and/or 24-70, or else (say) a 35-135/4 to sit above the 16-35. Instead, we get the overlap.

(Yes, there is the Canon 10-20. That exposed front element always looks so vulnerable though. If you owned one, you'd have to be super careful with it.)

 

[Sittatunga]

It has always seemed strange to me that the standard lenses have so much overlap.

Take a typical kit in full frame lenses. It is likely to be something like:

16-35, 24-70, and 70-200

or

16-35, 24-105, 100-400

in crop,

10-18, 17-55, and 55-250

In Micro Four Thirds, the holy trinity is

7-14, 12-40, 40-150

Notice the pattern here.

Notice how neatly the longer lenses match: the 27-70 and the 70-200 dovetail together, with no gaps and no wasteful overlap. Ditto the 24-105 and the 100-400; ditto again the 12-40 and the 40-150 (if you are used to full frame, think of those two as a 24-80/2.8 and an 80-300/2.8). The only exception is the 1.6 crop set, where the 55-250 is a cheap lens better matched with the plastic 18-55 and not worth of comparison to the high quality 10-22 and 17-55 units. Presumably, Canon decided that crop buyers could make do with full frame 70-200s if they wanted something better, or else take a 15-85 instead of the 17-55.

Now notice how poorly the shorter lenses match. In every case, you have wasteful overlap. The overlap between (for example) 35 and 24 makes one or both lenses heavier, physically larger, more expensive, and makes it more difficult to achieve ideal image quality. And it serves very little useful purpose.

For example, I have the 16-35/4 and 24-105/4. Result: my beautiful 16-35 seldom gets used unless I want to go shorter than 24mm. I could use it for shots at e.g.) 30mm, but generally don't. I just use the 24-105. But I still have to carry that bulky, heavy 16-35 around anyway, ready for the times when 24mm isn't enough.

It has always seemed weird to me that Canon don't make either something like a 14-22 to match up with 24-105 and/or 24-70, or else (say) a 35-135/4 to sit above the 16-35. Instead, we get the overlap.

(Yes, there is the Canon 10-20. That exposed front element always looks so vulnerable though. If you owned one, you'd have to be super careful with it.)

Travelling light, I carry the 16mm f/2.8 for when 24mm isn't wide enough. I could walk around all day with the 16-35 f/4, but it's more practical with the EF-M 11-22mm. I am super careful with the 10-20mm; my old Sigma 12-24mm is worse, slower and a bit bigger but neither is as worrisome as the EF 11-24mm was.

Canon have recently introduced the high end amateur 16-28mm and 28-70mm f/2.8 zooms though if you want to avoid overlap between 16mm and 200mm in three f/2.8 lenses.

 

[Andy01]

I don't think it is weird at all.

IMO the "gap" between, say, 60mm and 80mm really isn't that big, but the (much smaller) "gap" between 17mm and 28mm or 24mm and 35mm is huge, so a small difference matters far more at the wide end.

I suspect the overlap is purely to reduce unnecessary lens changes. If shooting wider subjects (say walking around outdoors or in a "street" situation) then I would not want to be swapping between a 20mm capable and a 28mm (which are quite different) capable every few minutes - hence the UWA zooms tend to cover from around 14 to 17mm up to 28 to 35mm.

My current lenses are RF 15-30, RF 24-105L f4 and RF 100-400, though the 100-400 is usually on my APS-C R10. I welcome the overlap between 24mm and 30mm because it makes each of the lenses a bit more usable IMO.

 

[Trevor Sowers]

It has always seemed strange to me that the standard lenses have so much overlap.

Take a typical kit in full frame lenses. It is likely to be something like:

16-35, 24-70, and 70-200

or

16-35, 24-105, 100-400

in crop,

10-18, 17-55, and 55-250

In Micro Four Thirds, the holy trinity is

7-14, 12-40, 40-150

Notice the pattern here.

Notice how neatly the longer lenses match: the 27-70 and the 70-200 dovetail together, with no gaps and no wasteful overlap. Ditto the 24-105 and the 100-400; ditto again the 12-40 and the 40-150 (if you are used to full frame, think of those two as a 24-80/2.8 and an 80-300/2.8). The only exception is the 1.6 crop set, where the 55-250 is a cheap lens better matched with the plastic 18-55 and not worth of comparison to the high quality 10-22 and 17-55 units. Presumably, Canon decided that crop buyers could make do with full frame 70-200s if they wanted something better, or else take a 15-85 instead of the 17-55.

Now notice how poorly the shorter lenses match. In every case, you have wasteful overlap. The overlap between (for example) 35 and 24 makes one or both lenses heavier, physically larger, more expensive, and makes it more difficult to achieve ideal image quality. And it serves very little useful purpose.

For example, I have the 16-35/4 and 24-105/4. Result: my beautiful 16-35 seldom gets used unless I want to go shorter than 24mm. I could use it for shots at e.g.) 30mm, but generally don't. I just use the 24-105. But I still have to carry that bulky, heavy 16-35 around anyway, ready for the times when 24mm isn't enough.

It has always seemed weird to me that Canon don't make either something like a 14-22 to match up with 24-105 and/or 24-70, or else (say) a 35-135/4 to sit above the 16-35. Instead, we get the overlap.

(Yes, there is the Canon 10-20. That exposed front element always looks so vulnerable though. If you owned one, you'd have to be super careful with it.)

Your 16-35 is a much better 24mm than your 24-105 IMO

 

[RubenJ]

It is indeed to prevent you from changing lenses all the time. On hikes I now bring the 17-40&70-200 and leave the 24-70. Its great to have a little zoom range. Even if I would bring the 24-70, it's handy to be able to shoot 24-35mm (or 40) with two lenses.

 

[Tannin]

Your 16-35 is a much better 24mm than your 24-105 IMO

A fair point. On the other hand, my 24-105 is a much better 35mm than the 16-35 is.

Both lenses would be improved (smaller, lighter, cheaper, and quite possibly sharper) if they were (say) 16-30 and 28-105.

Of course, you'd need to swap lenses more often, or (as I do habitually) carry two bodies.

 

[Eddie Rizk]

Your 16-35 is a much better 24mm than your 24-105 IMO

A fair point. On the other hand, my 24-105 is a much better 35mm than the 16-35 is.

Both lenses would be improved (smaller, lighter, cheaper, and quite possibly sharper) if they were (say) 16-30 and 28-105.

Of course, you'd need to swap lenses more often, or (as I do habitually) carry two bodies.

I like to carry two bodies and one extra lens, if my primary purpose is photography.



If my primary purpose is something else, but I want a good camera to shoot whatever, while I’m out, I like to carry just one camera with its lens. So the overlap is nice, for me.

 

[Tannin]

Eddie Rizk wrote:
I like to carry two bodies and one extra lens, if my primary purpose is photography.

If my primary purpose is something else, but I want a good camera to shoot whatever, while I’m out, I like to carry just one camera with its lens. So the overlap is nice, for me.

I do much the same @Eddie Rizk. Not in detail, but in broad. I vary my kit according to purpose, and it's in flux now because I'm in the middle of settling in two new bodies and five new lenses (after quite a few years of buying nothing), but for example:

• BIRDING (car-based): 600/4 & 5DS R; 100-500 & R5 II; 24-105 & 5DS; 16-35 & 5D IV. When I stop and get out, it's easy to grab whichever ones are going to be most useful. Or I can (and often do) hand-old the 600/4 without leaving my seat - this is THE best way to shoot shy grassland species like bushlarks, pipits, and songlarks - none of them will tolerate you up close on foot, and their habitat has zero cover. The overlap really doesn't matter at all.
• LANDSCAPING (on foot) Some combination of those above minus the 600/4. Often all three, but that is heavy and cumbersome and I resent the overlap. Often I leave the 16-35 behind and then the extra width at the short lens of the 24-1005 is handy.
• PRIMARY PURPOSE SOMETHING ELSE OM-5 and 14-150. Not the stellar combination the others mentioned above are, but more than good enough for most scenes of opportunity and so small and light that carrying it everywhere is no trouble at all.

At some point I'll retire a few things I'm not using much - probably my much-loved 1D IV (which I'd keep if only it wasn't so big and heavy); the 35/1.4L I practically never use, and the 24 TS-E (ditto). Probably not the 7D II. It is (almost) the only camera I have that fits my wonderful little Tokina zoom diagonal fisheye - unique in the whole of lensdom and irreplaceable for the right subject.

 

[Dave]

It has always seemed strange to me that the standard lenses have so much overlap.

Take a typical kit in full frame lenses. It is likely to be something like:

16-35, 24-70, and 70-200

or

16-35, 24-105, 100-400

in crop,

10-18, 17-55, and 55-250

In Micro Four Thirds, the holy trinity is

7-14, 12-40, 40-150

Notice the pattern here.

Notice how neatly the longer lenses match: the 27-70 and the 70-200 dovetail together, with no gaps and no wasteful overlap. Ditto the 24-105 and the 100-400; ditto again the 12-40 and the 40-150 (if you are used to full frame, think of those two as a 24-80/2.8 and an 80-300/2.8). The only exception is the 1.6 crop set, where the 55-250 is a cheap lens better matched with the plastic 18-55 and not worth of comparison to the high quality 10-22 and 17-55 units. Presumably, Canon decided that crop buyers could make do with full frame 70-200s if they wanted something better, or else take a 15-85 instead of the 17-55.

Now notice how poorly the shorter lenses match. In every case, you have wasteful overlap. The overlap between (for example) 35 and 24 makes one or both lenses heavier, physically larger, more expensive, and makes it more difficult to achieve ideal image quality. And it serves very little useful purpose.

For example, I have the 16-35/4 and 24-105/4. Result: my beautiful 16-35 seldom gets used unless I want to go shorter than 24mm. I could use it for shots at e.g.) 30mm, but generally don't. I just use the 24-105. But I still have to carry that bulky, heavy 16-35 around anyway, ready for the times when 24mm isn't enough.

It has always seemed weird to me that Canon don't make either something like a 14-22 to match up with 24-105 and/or 24-70, or else (say) a 35-135/4 to sit above the 16-35. Instead, we get the overlap.

(Yes, there is the Canon 10-20. That exposed front element always looks so vulnerable though. If you owned one, you'd have to be super careful with it.)

Overlap can help photographers deal with lenses that do not perform best at their extremes.