Do I need lots of lenses?

neiljs

neiljs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
30
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi to all, a quick question for you,
Why do I need lots of lenses? I have a Canon 550d with a 50mm prime lens, a Tamron 18-270 and the kit lens 18-55,
Can anyone please tell me the benefits of spending lots more on diff lenses?
I take general photography. Kids/grandkids, holidays etc etc, as far as I can see the Tamron covers a wide range from wide angle to zoom so I am pretty confused
Any help would be greatly app thanks
 
having more lenses with moderate zoom range or prime lenses offer better image quality.

prime lenses often offer larger aperture, allow better low light shooting. i'm sure you've already discovered that with the 50mm.

moderate zoom lenses offer better sharpness. perhaps not the kit lens, but most other lenses will offer much better contrast, much sharper images.

if you are happy with images you get from the 18-270mm super zoom, then there's no need to look at other options, perhaps put the 50mm prime in your bag for low light situations.
 
Some people buy lenses because they can, others buy them because they need them. Then there are the people who straddle both camps...

Effectively, you've got from 18mm through to 270mm covered in one lens, which is a very useful range for general shooting.

The key factor in deciding whether or not you need more lenses and how much you spend, are the gains associated with upgrading.

Take your 18-270mm for example; it'll be something like f/5 at the wide end, changing to f/6.7 at 260mm. Ideal for good light where decent shutter speeds will still be available (without cranking up the ISO) but get to low light situations then you either need to increase the ISO to cope, and/or invest in a faster aperture lens. You could get something like an f/2.8 120-300mm Sigma, a superb lens, but it's going to be the best part of £1600 new/£1000 used but you have a loss of overall focal length - you've gained 30mm at the long end - but you've gained several stops of light gathering power. It's cost a lot of money to get those gains though....

It's thinking like this that usually leads to people buying new lenses.

My own path was like this; I had a 18-70mm Nikon that was f/3.5-4.5 but I wanted a constant f/2.8 lens so swapped for a Tamron 17-50mm. I couldn't afford the Nikon 17-55mm at the time so this was the perfect option. Once I got the funds together, I bought the more expensive Nikon version. Effectively, I've gained pro-spec build quality and optical perfection at f/2.8, although in effect I've lost 25mm of coverage at the long end when compared to that cheaper Nikon kit lens. But the gains are worth it.... then I went mad and just bought loads of different lenses :lol:

I shoot professionally but I've concluded that aside from a long, fast prime (eg: 300mm f/4) I have everything covered in five lenses - 11-16mm f/2.8 for the wide editorial stuff; 17-55mm as my standard 'walkabout' lens; 35mm f/1.8 for low light and as a general video lens; 60mm macro for close-up work; 70-200mm as my long lens option, combined with a teleconverter if required. I've had all sorts of other lenses and there are lenses that appeal to me (14-24mm f/2.8 for example) but I know they're luxurious rather than essentials. All my lenses are the fastest available and that matters a lot, seeing as I work outdoors and need as much light gather ability as possible.
 
Last edited:
neiljs said:
Can anyone please tell me the benefits of spending lots more on diff lenses?
Click to expand...

Depending on where you buy them

- You'll help a few camera retailers and manufacturers' profits

- assist in creating employment opportunities in the far East and for delivery companies in the UK

- VAT to the Exchequer will contribute to controlling the national debt or fund public spending, thus promoting economic growth in this country

Wherever you buy them, it will not do much good for UK national balance of payments figures.

:)
 
Only you know if you need more lenses. For example if you get into macro you may need one, if you get into landscapes you may want a wider one etc,. or if the IQ you get from your current lenses doesn't satisfy then you may need a more expensive lens.

If you are happy with the 18-270 then that is good and no you don't need any more lenses. Photography is one of the worst hobbies around for having excuses to buy stuff...
 
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to reply, you have helped me in my belief that I dont NEED any more lenses, but, as is common with all photographers I WANT LOTS
Just need to justify my purchases,
 
If you are like me you'll find that you'll go full circle. owning lots of lenses in between until you land on the exact set that you need. I've had up to 8 lenses at any one time, but now have just 4. 3 of which are used regularly
 
I have 5 lenses

17-70 - general shortrange lens, goes up to f/2.8 so very flexible
35mm prime - great portrait lens and also goes up to to f/1.8 so extremely useful in low light.
70-300mm - standard zoom lens
50-500mm - BIG heavy zoom lens, no idea how much use I will get out of this
10-20mm - My ultra wide lens, I've taken a number of great shots with this lens, I love it and probably my favourite, but limited scope so no my most used.

Each lens has a distinct use, I would like to change my 70-300mm for a 70-200mm f/2.8, after that I will be complete.


Then I will probably change my camera body.
 
Clearly a major benefit of an SLR (digital or film) is the opportunity to use the most suitable lens available for the given conditions in order to obtain the desired result (albeit within any necessary financial constraints).

The need to buy more/different lenses is therefore only driven by you and the photographs you want (or are paid) to take. e.g. if you wanted to photograph insects a macro lens would be useful.
 
On the flip side to my previous comment, not a single lens has made me a better photographer.

I can do the technical side, shutter speed, aperture etc. but composure, the eye for the photograph has to come from the photographer.
 
Need? No - I'm not a pro so don't NEED any of my camera kit! Want? You betcha!!! Each of my lenses has its uses, whether it be a specific focal length, effect/look, light level or use, all the lenses in my bag have earned that place.
I have a selection of cameras for different uses too. The D700 + assorted lenses for when photography is the main point of the exercise, a Fuji HS30 bridge for range and lightness, a Fuji XF1 for good photographs from a truly pocketable camera and a Canon D10 for underwater/snorkelling. Again, each has a use.
 
A good photographer could get by with one body, one 50mm lens. Many did way back. But, this doesn't mean we have to ;) I don't 'need' the 4 lenses I have, nor the compact that just arrived this morning [RX100] - But, this is the first time in a long time, many years in fact, that I have had the luxury of being able to buy these things. So damn right I'll have 'em :) and I'll make use of them all over time too.
 
I found a few das ago a lens such as a 28-270mm like the tamron would be really handy for me when walking about and would save me changing lenses regularly.

However im also looking to get a fast 35mm prime for low light work etc

It all depends where you want to take your photography. Think about what you want to shoot and then decide if your current equipment will allow you to capture what your after - if not then you need more lenses :)
 
I've got a dedicated macro lens, a dedicated long lens (for aviation) and 3 primes of different lengths for portraits. On top of them I have a couple of fast zoom lenses covering 24-200 that I use for the best IQ possible. What lenses you buy will be decided by what you shoot in particular.

My only lens I have that is 'redundant' to some degree is my 24-105 f4L IS as I've got the length covered by my 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 but the IQ I get from the 24-105 is so good I don't want to get rid of it until I find another lens I 'need'.
 
I'm a bit of a lens whore. Always itching to get the next one.

But earlier in the year when I went on holiday I just took my Tamron 18-200 and a 50mm prime for low light.

If all you are doing is taking photos of the kids & holidays then you don't need lots of lenses. I can't see me ever wanting to take a 70-200 f2.8 with me for family days out. The thing ways a tonne and would eat up a lot of my luggage allowance. Not to mention you might as well tattoo 'mug me' across my forehead.
 
The D700 isn't worth mugging you for? TBH, my (Sigma) 70-200 f/2.8 rarely comes out with me - as you say, they're not light! My 70-300 VR does stay in the bag though - the VR can't help with moving subjects but does allow me to use slower shutter speeds to compensate for the lack of aperture.

Quite looking forward to the liberation of a holiday without a DSLR and kit bag - I'll be taking the bridge, waterproof and pocketable cameras but no extra lenses. No worries about hand luggage weight, no bad back from lugging the bag around and no moans from my wife. Even with the travel tripod (Giottos Vitruvian CF), the whole planned kit will be considerably lighter than the D700 kitbag.
 
Nod said:
The D700 isn't worth mugging you for?
Click to expand...

Nah....not stupid! The D700 only comes out to play for paying gigs. I use my Sony A77 for everything else. Besides, to your average man in the street, an DSLR is a DSLR. They won't be able to value it from afar. But nothing says EXPENSIVE KIT like a 1.5kg piece of glass!
 
I use my Sigma 70-200 2.8 for my dog photography, and it is my main walk about lens (doesn't seem very big or heavy to me at all). Second in terms of use us my 100-400 for birds / wildlife and more distant dogs. 90mm macro for, well, macro, which I do a lot if in the summers. 24-105 for wider stuff, landscapes etc. 50mm 1.8 for indoor doggy portraits. My 10-20mm rarely comes out and I am thinking of selling it.

I had the joy yesterday of spending the whole day on my own in a hide with a 500mm f4 IS L. Do I need it? Definitely! Can I justify the spending the price of a horse on a lens? Unfortunately not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top