Building a lens set

[Ryan Schwartz]

As other mentioned, it's more of an individual choice. It's all about finding the right tool for the job. I built out a lens set by finding deficiencies in what I was shooting...wishing what I had that I didn't at the time.

 

[whoosh1]

There was an old article on Photography Life on the topic, but its for FX and I was genuinely interested in other peoples thoughts ..

And you also mentioned the following in your original post:

On FX I had the 'holy trinity' and a few primes, but with mirrorless I'm looking to do things a bit differently.

By FX do you actually mean to F-mount (SLR) FX and that you are now interested in Z mount (mirrorless) FX? Z mount full frame lenses are also FX.

As far as DX is concerned, we only have limited number of lenses for Z mount DX, so you would not have many different sets.

 

[whettam]

By FX do you actually mean to F-mount (SLR) FX and that you are now interested in Z mount (mirrorless) FX? Z mount full frame lenses are also FX.

Hi apologies my mistake / poor description, yes I was referring to F mount on old DLSR.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

My lens set was mostly to balance cost and convinience while still retaining the qualities of the lenses I wanted.

I already had a Nikon D700 with a 50mm f/1.8G, and some film era glass (50 1.8 E series, 28mm f/2.8 vivitar, Nikkor AI 35mm f/2), camera which I still use quite a lot.

I also had a couple DX Nikons like the D300, and I use the Tokina 12-24 DX as a wide angle zoom. It didn't see a lot of use, but it can cover a full frame sensor at 18mm.

I got a Nikon Z6 as a way to have the mirrorless technology, but still being able to share lenses with my D700. That had a double effect : I can share lenses so I only own one set of lenses which I use on both cameras, and I can benefit from the much cheaper F mount lenses, which are more than enough for my needs anyway.

So in addition to the 12-24 DX and AF-S 50 f/1.8G, I added an AF-S 85mm f/1.8G and Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 contemporary.

Coming from Fuji I still wanted to have some compact lens options, so I added both the Z 28mm f/2.8 and Z 40mm f/2, both of which I have film era glass to cover that focal range on my DSLRs.

so right now I have the 12-24 DX (18-24 FX) to cover anything ultra wide / wide angle (I don't much like 24mm and wider, but there are some use cases), then I use my prime lenses for everything between 28 and 85mm which is the focal range I use the most (40/50mm especially) then for anything longer I have the 100-400.

I currently don't have any problem with that kit, it does what I want it to do, it didn't cost me an arm and a leg and the optical quality is more than enough.

I'm maybe considering either an AF-S 24-120 f/4G or AF-S 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G to make a nice 2-lens travel kit with the 100-400, sometimes carrying all those primes can prove a little cumbersome, but as it stands I'm pretty happy with the lenses have and this is very much a "nice to have" rather than a requirement.

I am not interested in much Z mount lenses besides the 28 and 40mm. Maybe the 35 1.4 if it comes down enough in priced used, in a couple of years, but I'm rarely using 35mm, and I much prefer 28 or 40mm anyway so

 

[owenleve]

Tamron 35-150. Build around that.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I'm interested in how everyone has built your set of lens, especially your thoughts on how the set will work together why this fits for your chosen subjects, conscious overlaps, missing gaps and compromises? Interested partly to see whether others approaches, make me rethink mine.

On FX I had the 'holy trinity' and a few primes, but with mirrorless I'm looking to do things a bit differently. Like many I’m sure, I’m trying to balance quality, weight, flexibility and cost. Currently I just have the 35 1.8, 85 1.8 and the 24-70 f4 (kit lenses).

I’ve not decided yet which to add next, but have planned my target kit bag of lenses, I’ve broken this down by main photography subjects I'm interested in, I only want to carry max of three (pref 2) lenses at any onetime.

People (and Dog) Portraits / Documentary / Street Photography

• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 85 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8 (don’t yet own)
• Nikon Z 17-28 f/2.8 (or Viltrox 20 f/2.8, don’t yet own either)
• I know I said 3 lenses per category, but depending on location / subject I’d pick 2/3 from these 4

Everyday / Travel

• Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 (don’t yet own, I’ll trade in my 24-70 f/4 when I do get this)
• Nikon Z 40 f/2 (again don’t yet own)

Sports (likely to mainly be surfing / rugby / equestrian) / Dogs in action

• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8
• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8 (wider scene setting option for sports)

I’m not really a landscape, architecture or macro photographer, but think adding the above lenses will cover these bases if necessary. So that’s four more lenses making a total of six.

Rationale / Compromise in the planned purchases

The obvious omission / compromise is no 24 -70 f/2.8 and my decision (I think ;-) to just swap the f4 14-70 for the 24-120. This is partly because of cost / weight, but also for a general walkabout I think I’d like more reach than 70. If I'm limiting myself to the f4 of the 24-120, the 40 f2 seems a no brainer, as a low weight addition to give me a low light option.

Although the weight of the 24-120 and 40 are similar to the 24-70 f2.8, so I am prioritising that extra reach and hoping I can make the 35 / 85 and the 17-28 / 70-180, work for people / documentary.

I think I’m OK with quality compromise of the 70-180 vs the 70-200, it’s a lot lighter / cheaper and seems will fit for me, although I am tempted to wait and see if Tamron release the G2 version for Nikon Z.

The 17-28 is probably the one I have struggled choosing the most, when I previously had a UWA I was not a big fan of the photos I took (although I like other peoples). I’m also tempted to just start with the Viltrox 20 f/2.8 prime as a wide option, because I like using primes (will fit well with the 35 and 85) and the weight / low cost, I can then see how I get on with that. But ultimately think I may want more flexibility, hence the 17-28 which I think is a good range for my use cases.

As I said interested to hear how others are building your lens sets?

I'm going to focus only on the lenses, since I Do generally have both bodies with me, except for maybe casual daily walks (but for anything else, landscape, travel, etc) I always have a second/backup body so bodies aren't relevant I guess (IMO) for this discussion...

For me, I have gone the more versatile route, so I try to find lenses (mainly zooms) that are good quality, but are also versatile. I'm not one for having a ton of primes and a ton of zooms that duplicate what the prime can do and vice-vesa, even though I know the fast primes offer a different look, particularly when shot wide open obviously, but since I don't shoot wide open / shallow DOF most of the time, this has become less relevant for me. I'd say 90% of my work is between casual daily photography of whatever/random stuff, landscape and travel. So I found that for this 90%, I can use basically 2-3 lenses,...

Landscape kit:

• Z 14-30
• Z 24-120
• Z 100-400 (don't have this yet in the kit, but will be adding it soon)

Travel kit:

• Z 14-30 (or Viltrox 20mm 2.8 if weight/size is a concern)
• Z 24-120
• Z 50mm for low-light

Portrait Kit (which I only shoot maybe 10% of the time and might also include "street" phtoography)

• Z 50 1.8 (or 40mm f/2 if I'm strictly doing street photography, since this lens is smaller, a bit wider (closer to a 35mm) and lighter than the 50mm
• Z 85 1.8

(I have other lenses obviously but these are what I'd consider my "core set" of lenses that get used on a regular/frequent basis. Some of my other lenses are more specialty/toys -- like my 7.5mm Fisheye lens).

So for me, a lot of lenses are used for different things, thus reducing the number of lenses I need to keep around. I've also changed my mindset for how and when I acquire gear... I'm no longer falling prey to GAS (something that took many years to break free from) but am glad I did these past few years, as I realized how much I was spending on gear that I frankly didn't use that much. The lenses listed above get regular use (and certainly the 14-30 and 24-120 which are probably the two most commonly used lenses in my kit). For the landscape kit, the 100-400 would also double up as a wildlife lens (I'm sort of getting into this, but not very heavily, and one reason I want to get the 100-400 and not the 180-600... the Z 180-600 looks to be a good lens, but probably not suitable for landscape, and that's where the Z 100-400 comes in, and follows my "versatility" mindset.

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

 

[BasilG]

I tried to rationally build up my set like you but in reality I just ended up buying the stuff I liked most and rationalised it post-hoc. Upside: Got nice lenses (I think). Downside: Spent too much money.

One thing I did do was look at what I enjoy most and get the best thing I could reasonably afford for that. I do a lot of landscapes, so I have the 14-24/2.8. And I have reconnected with my childhood interest in aviation, which caused me to get the 600/6.3 (along with the 100-400 that I use for landscapes/travel as well). And then there is the stuff in between - 24-120/4, 50/1.8, 105/2.8 MC.

 

[chrisD46]

I'm interested in how everyone has built your set of lens, especially your thoughts on how the set will work together why this fits for your chosen subjects, conscious overlaps, missing gaps and compromises? Interested partly to see whether others approaches, make me rethink mine.

On FX I had the 'holy trinity' and a few primes, but with mirrorless I'm looking to do things a bit differently. Like many I’m sure, I’m trying to balance quality, weight, flexibility and cost. Currently I just have the 35 1.8, 85 1.8 and the 24-70 f4 (kit lenses).

I’ve not decided yet which to add next, but have planned my target kit bag of lenses, I’ve broken this down by main photography subjects I'm interested in, I only want to carry max of three (pref 2) lenses at any onetime.

People (and Dog) Portraits / Documentary / Street Photography

• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 85 f/1.8
• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8 (don’t yet own)
• Nikon Z 17-28 f/2.8 (or Viltrox 20 f/2.8, don’t yet own either)
• I know I said 3 lenses per category, but depending on location / subject I’d pick 2/3 from these 4

Everyday / Travel

• Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 (don’t yet own, I’ll trade in my 24-70 f/4 when I do get this)
• Nikon Z 40 f/2 (again don’t yet own)

Sports (likely to mainly be surfing / rugby / equestrian) / Dogs in action

• Nikon Z 70-180 f/2.8
• Nikon Z 35 f/1.8 (wider scene setting option for sports)

I’m not really a landscape, architecture or macro photographer, but think adding the above lenses will cover these bases if necessary. So that’s four more lenses making a total of six.

Rationale / Compromise in the planned purchases

The obvious omission / compromise is no 24 -70 f/2.8 and my decision (I think ;-) to just swap the f4 14-70 for the 24-120. This is partly because of cost / weight, but also for a general walkabout I think I’d like more reach than 70. If I'm limiting myself to the f4 of the 24-120, the 40 f2 seems a no brainer, as a low weight addition to give me a low light option.

Although the weight of the 24-120 and 40 are similar to the 24-70 f2.8, so I am prioritising that extra reach and hoping I can make the 35 / 85 and the 17-28 / 70-180, work for people / documentary.

I think I’m OK with quality compromise of the 70-180 vs the 70-200, it’s a lot lighter / cheaper and seems will fit for me, although I am tempted to wait and see if Tamron release the G2 version for Nikon Z.

The 17-28 is probably the one I have struggled choosing the most, when I previously had a UWA I was not a big fan of the photos I took (although I like other peoples). I’m also tempted to just start with the Viltrox 20 f/2.8 prime as a wide option, because I like using primes (will fit well with the 35 and 85) and the weight / low cost, I can then see how I get on with that. But ultimately think I may want more flexibility, hence the 17-28 which I think is a good range for my use cases.

As I said interested to hear how others are building your lens sets?

I'm going to focus only on the lenses, since I Do generally have both bodies with me, except for maybe casual daily walks (but for anything else, landscape, travel, etc) I always have a second/backup body so bodies aren't relevant I guess (IMO) for this discussion...

For me, I have gone the more versatile route, so I try to find lenses (mainly zooms) that are good quality, but are also versatile. I'm not one for having a ton of primes and a ton of zooms that duplicate what the prime can do and vice-vesa, even though I know the fast primes offer a different look, particularly when shot wide open obviously, but since I don't shoot wide open / shallow DOF most of the time, this has become less relevant for me. I'd say 90% of my work is between casual daily photography of whatever/random stuff, landscape and travel. So I found that for this 90%, I can use basically 2-3 lenses,...

Landscape kit:

• Z 14-30
• Z 24-120
• Z 100-400 (don't have this yet in the kit, but will be adding it soon)

Travel kit:

• Z 14-30 (or Viltrox 20mm 2.8 if weight/size is a concern)
• Z 24-120
• Z 50mm for low-light

Portrait Kit (which I only shoot maybe 10% of the time and might also include "street" phtoography)

• Z 50 1.8 (or 40mm f/2 if I'm strictly doing street photography, since this lens is smaller, a bit wider (closer to a 35mm) and lighter than the 50mm
• Z 85 1.8

(I have other lenses obviously but these are what I'd consider my "core set" of lenses that get used on a regular/frequent basis. Some of my other lenses are more specialty/toys -- like my 7.5mm Fisheye lens).

So for me, a lot of lenses are used for different things, thus reducing the number of lenses I need to keep around. I've also changed my mindset for how and when I acquire gear... I'm no longer falling prey to GAS (something that took many years to break free from) but am glad I did these past few years, as I realized how much I was spending on gear that I frankly didn't use that much. The lenses listed above get regular use (and certainly the 14-30 and 24-120 which are probably the two most commonly used lenses in my kit). For the landscape kit, the 100-400 would also double up as a wildlife lens (I'm sort of getting into this, but not very heavily, and one reason I want to get the 100-400 and not the 180-600... the Z 180-600 looks to be a good lens, but probably not suitable for landscape, and that's where the Z 100-400 comes in, and follows my "versatility" mindset.

*What a great Z lens set up !!

 

[GeoffRG]

The first point I must make is that this is somewhat hypothetical as I don’t use the Z system. I do however have D5 bodies and lenses. Specifically 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 which, together with a TC17 are my most used items. I also have a 300f/4 and 200-500 f/5.6 as well as a TC14. I sold my prime lenses only recently because I simply wasn’t using them. I don’t carry a bag, I carry a second body and lens for the reason that a Billingham Hadley one, a second lens and a spare battery weighs more than having that lens on another D5.

Were I to move to the Z system I would want the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. There’s no Z mount TC17 so it would have to be the TC14. I don’t use the 300 f/4 much so I would probably not replace that but I would probably get the 180-600 to replace the 200-500. That, with two Z9 bodies, is likely to be the extent of any Z mount system. I find changing lenses in the field to be a time waster and definitely a way to miss a shot. I can grab the other camera much faster than I can change a lens.

The argument that prime lenses offer higher quality is rapidly countered by saying that the quality of the image from a zoom far exceeds the quality of an image you missed because the wrong lens was mounted. I used prime lens for something over 20 years, when the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 was launched I bought one of those and have rarely used 24, 35, 50, or 85 lenses since. I hung on to a 105 f/2 AF DC for nearly 25 years (I last used it at a friend’s wedding, she celebrated 25 years since her ordination recently, and that was before the wedding) but sold that last year.

By all means buy prime lenses but, unless you make a living from photography, don’t let the photography distract you from the experience.

 

[jjz2]

I don’t think the gap between modern mirrorless zooms and the primes in terms of iq is really there any more. Though I used to have this mindset.

get the prime if you need the low light capability, thin dof, or small size.

I don’t think you are really going to get significant difference though in IQ anymore.

I was comparing stopped down shots of 24-120 vs the 35 and 50 I shot before and it’s really hard to tell a diff, at least on the 24mp bodies I’ve used.

 

[Ruby Rod]

Agree, the only thing primes get you these days is a larger aperture. Maybe some subtle IQ difference in terms of bokeh, but at a level only other photographers will notice.

 

[Wildkits]

My entry into the world of Z was my pursuit of a strong birding lens. I had been a Nikon user before with the D850 and 500mm pf my main FX goto kit. The pf lens was fine, but I was not happy with the D850 birding performance, so I jumped into mirrorless first with the Sony a7III, which I matched with the 200-600mm G, then I jumped to the Canon R5 and 100-500L on introduction (I do not recommend this odyssey, but it was a lot of fun exploring these different systems albeit expensive). I realize that my love of birding and wildlife had developed enough that I was ready to commit to a long exotic. This was about the time that Sony in troduced the A1, Canon R3 rumors were afloat, and Nikon was teasing the Z9. I realized that if I were going to make a $12k-$15k lens purchase, my rambling days needed to end. Being agnostic between systems, I considered all three. Fortunately, the rumor of Nikon's Z400mm TC sealed the deal in favor of Nikon.

However, until Nikon officially introduced that exotic, I needed a kit to mate to my Z9. I still had my 500pf as well as the 105mm f/1.4E (I still have both), so I wasn't stuck with a cheap kit lens. I preordered the Z100-400, but after having used the Canon rf 100-500, the Z lens was a no go. The Z may have better IQ, but I couldn't live without the extra 100mm that the Canon offered. I ordered the z24-120mm but picked up a 24-70 f/4 off of eBay (at $300, I couldn't pass it up). Very good lens, but I haven't used it since getting the more flexible 24-120. Like a previous poster,

I pick up lenses as needed. The 14-30, 105 macro, and 85mm 1.8, all purchased inexpensively used, come to mind (and, yes, I got the 400mm TC, which is with me now as I fly back home). I still shoot Canon, so I haven't felt a need to "complete" my Z kit. I have a EF24-70 f2.8, and RF 70-200mm (love the compact size), so it's unlikely I will buy those lenses in Nikon mount.

Currently, I go back and forth thinking about acquiring the 600mm pf. The 400TC has better IQ, but it is a bear to take on the road, and I haven't been happy adapting the 500pf to Z. So the 600pf would be my travel lens when I don't need/desire the ultimate IQ of the 400TC. Of course, the $500-off sale ends tonight, so I'll likely put off that decision until Black Friday.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

After decades of building and rebuilding my f-mount lens kit, I made the jump to mirrorless a couple of years ago.

Until then I basically decided which lenses I wanted to have, then only bought those lenses, using older ones until I achieved my lens goal. I personally built a main/travel kit around a 24-70f2.8, even when I was still shooting DX. I generally don't like buying 'starter lenses' that you are supposed to grow out of.

Anyway, back to mirrorless. I went from a gripped D850 to a Z9. No problems there (and I've now learned some video).

Lenses - the only f-mount I've marked for use with the Z9 has been my 500pf. There's nothing quite like it, it doesn't make sense to drop to 400mm, and there's few returns for the buck to get a 600 z-mount.

But the rest - I just replaced the lenses I actually used a lot in f-mount, at first. 35, 50, 85f1.8 primes, 14-30, 24-70f2.8 zooms and 105 macro were purchased during Nikon lens sales. I soon added a 100-400 to complete my basic set when I realized it wouldn't be on sale anytime soon.

I had the holy trinity too, but I never much used the 14-24 or the 70-200. So I didn't buy them in z-mount. That was fine for a year.

My rationale for buying them all at once was to get the maximum use out of them while I still could. (I'm 70.)

That same rationale has me buying some interesting lenses in the past couple of years. I got the 14-24 f2.8 (refurbished) - and still don't use it! I got the 135 Plena because it was something I'd never experienced. That led me to get the 85 f1.2 and 50 f1.2. My bank account is down a lot, but then I can't take it with me, and I've enjoyed my gear.

When I first bought a Nikon in 1992 it was for autofocus. My Canon didn't have it, and Canon changed lens mounts, so no matter what I bought I had to start a new lens set. Started with a Nikon 8008s, 28-85, and 50f1.8.

It took years to get what I wanted, bridged over by the fairly poor 28-85 zoom, Took 2 years just to save for an 80-200f2.8. Quality lenses were pretty dear when I was a young father. I loved my 85 F1,.8 AF lens for pictures of my kids.

Figure out what you want to end up with and just buy from that list.

 

[chrisD46]

The first point I must make is that this is somewhat hypothetical as I don’t use the Z system. I do however have D5 bodies and lenses. Specifically 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 which, together with a TC17 are my most used items. I also have a 300f/4 and 200-500 f/5.6 as well as a TC14. I sold my prime lenses only recently because I simply wasn’t using them. I don’t carry a bag, I carry a second body and lens for the reason that a Billingham Hadley one, a second lens and a spare battery weighs more than having that lens on another D5.

Were I to move to the Z system I would want the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. There’s no Z mount TC17 so it would have to be the TC14. I don’t use the 300 f/4 much so I would probably not replace that but I would probably get the 180-600 to replace the 200-500. That, with two Z9 bodies, is likely to be the extent of any Z mount system. I find changing lenses in the field to be a time waster and definitely a way to miss a shot. I can grab the other camera much faster than I can change a lens.

The argument that prime lenses offer higher quality is rapidly countered by saying that the quality of the image from a zoom far exceeds the quality of an image you missed because the wrong lens was mounted. I used prime lens for something over 20 years, when the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 was launched I bought one of those and have rarely used 24, 35, 50, or 85 lenses since. I hung on to a 105 f/2 AF DC for nearly 25 years (I last used it at a friend’s wedding, she celebrated 25 years since her ordination recently, and that was before the wedding) but sold that last year.

By all means buy prime lenses but, unless you make a living from photography, don’t let the photography distract you from the experience.

There is a large $$ savings if you don’t need the fastest f/2.8 Z zoom lenses . For instance , how often are you shooting the 14-24 wide open ? Conversely if money is no object the Z 14-24 f/2.8 is an excellent lens - but for me the other Z f/2.8 zoom lenses make more sense .

 

[GeoffRG]

The first point I must make is that this is somewhat hypothetical as I don’t use the Z system. I do however have D5 bodies and lenses. Specifically 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 which, together with a TC17 are my most used items. I also have a 300f/4 and 200-500 f/5.6 as well as a TC14. I sold my prime lenses only recently because I simply wasn’t using them. I don’t carry a bag, I carry a second body and lens for the reason that a Billingham Hadley one, a second lens and a spare battery weighs more than having that lens on another D5.

Were I to move to the Z system I would want the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. There’s no Z mount TC17 so it would have to be the TC14. I don’t use the 300 f/4 much so I would probably not replace that but I would probably get the 180-600 to replace the 200-500. That, with two Z9 bodies, is likely to be the extent of any Z mount system. I find changing lenses in the field to be a time waster and definitely a way to miss a shot. I can grab the other camera much faster than I can change a lens.

The argument that prime lenses offer higher quality is rapidly countered by saying that the quality of the image from a zoom far exceeds the quality of an image you missed because the wrong lens was mounted. I used prime lens for something over 20 years, when the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 was launched I bought one of those and have rarely used 24, 35, 50, or 85 lenses since. I hung on to a 105 f/2 AF DC for nearly 25 years (I last used it at a friend’s wedding, she celebrated 25 years since her ordination recently, and that was before the wedding) but sold that last year.

By all means buy prime lenses but, unless you make a living from photography, don’t let the photography distract you from the experience.

There is a large $$ savings if you don’t need the fastest f/2.8 Z zoom lenses . For instance , how often are you shooting the 14-24 wide open ? Conversely if money is no object the Z 14-24 f/2.8 is an excellent lens - but for me the other Z f/2.8 zoom lenses make more sense .

If it ever happens, I will be buying used.