How many lenses do you need?

KryptoNeo

KryptoNeo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
605
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just wondering how many lenses you need as a photographer.

I am a complete novice at photography even though I've had an interest of some sort for a good few years.

I look at some of the glass for sale and I wonder to myself what some of it is used for, what situation?

I like to photograph a bit of everything but sports and wildlife are my favourites and for those two I know I need a good tele zoom lens like a 70-200mm f2.8 or even a 150-400mm.

But what, as a keen enthusiast or even a pro, would you need In your bag for landscapes, portraits, macro etc.. To get the best images of your favourite subjects/styles
 
Again how long a piece of string,i mainly use zooms theses days,but its nice to have a few fast primes :)
 
I think it purely depends on what you photograph and your own style. I mainly shoot wildlife so my main 2 lenses are a 70-200 and a 150-500, however I also have a 24-70 for a general lens (all on FF). As to what each lens is for in general terms for low light photography and things where you need to maintain fast shutter speeds, then fast lenses are favourable, (low f numbers), however for landscapes where you primarily want a large DOF and will be using a tripod, then the large aperture lenses aren't as necessary, same applies with studio where the light is always good.

If what you are after is which lenses should I get, then it is difficult to say without knowing things like budget etc. If your main passion is sport and wildlife then I would say maybe something to cover the general range, 17-55 f/2.8 and a large telephoto maybe Canon 100-400 or Sigma/Tamron equivalents. I am assuming you are looking at APS C as in another thread you mentioned getting a 70D.
 
Some people like something like 17-40, 24-70 & 70-200mm or if you like primes 28, 50 & 85mm or variations on the theme.

Personally I prefer the primes and to the set of 3 I'd add a macro.
 
A decent quality standard zoom, with something like a 24-70mm equivalent range or longer, will cover everything from landscapes to portraits as a beginner. Get a fast standard prime such as a 35mm f/1.8 for indoors/low light, and you've got a basic starter setup. Don't splash out on a plethora of lenses unless you really get into a particular aspect of photography and are being let down by your existing kit.

No pro will do every style, and every pro will do every style differently! For example, some wedding photographers swear by a 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, a fast prime or two, and a bag full of flashguns etc, whereas others will only use one or two primes and available light all day. Pro wildlife photographers might think nothing of dropping £10k on a 600mm monster, and still curse that there isn't enough reach.

The best way to learn photography is to get one lens and learn how to use it, rather than get ten and get overwhelmed by it all. Trust me, I've been there!
 
This is an easy question, how many lenses you need = all the lenses you can afford to buy and then just one more and that one will soon be your most important must have lens. until you buy it then another one will become you must have lens, and so it goes on and on
 
As a keen hobbyst, it goes like this.

General purpose photography is covered by 3 lenses;
#1 A very wide zoom (17-40?)
#2 A standard zoom (24-105?)
#3 A mid range tele (70-200mm?)

For wildlife and motor racing something with a bit of reach - say out to 400/500mm. I have used a 100-400 and a 150-500mm.

Then come the fast glass - mostly for covering classical music concerts/opera, also good for hand held interior available light shots of grand children.
I use a 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2.

For close ups of flowers etc I am happy to use the "macro" setting on a good P&S camera.
 
Last edited:
KryptoNeo said:
I was just wondering how many lenses you need as a photographer.
Click to expand...
Need or want?

Looking at the shots I take, I could manage with just one lens 80% of the time - because about 80% of the shots I take are with my walkabout prime. My ideal set-up would be just four lenses - 14mm, 23mm, 56mm, 55-200mm - becase that would cover 99% of shots I take and would cover my needs. But it wouldn't cure my vintage glass addiction so there'd need to be 50mm, 85mm and 135mm offerings from Zeiss in the line-up as well to cover my wants..
 
Need? None! As a pure amateur, I don't need any but equally, to be able to do the hobby I love, the lenses I have fill almost all my wants. Yes, a faster longer lens would be handy for both systems but since my interests are mainly towards the wider end, I can live without an 80-400 or even a 150-500. Wouldn't say no to something longer than 200mm for the Fujis either.

If I had to, I could even trim down to one lens for each system - the 24-120 on the FF Nikon and the 18-135 on the Fuji. Not going to though because I don't need to!
 
For my needs I'd like (don't have all yet):

1) Walkabout lens: 24-105 (although might swap for 24-70 f2.8 at some point)

2) 50mm prime (for portraits)

3) 70-300 (mainly for the zoo)

4) 17-40 (for landscapes - just sold one to upgrade 70-300 so hopefully will get another at some point next year)

5) 105mm macro

So that's 5 for me
 
currently have 4 lenses 10-18 uwa, 28-105 , 85 mm portrait and 100-300 zoom.. do i want more. yes a 100mm macro and a better zoom, id probably get rid of the 100-300 and the 28-105 if i could get say the 100-400 canon L . the 28-105 is a nice lens but just dont use it really as im either doing portrait or landscape shots .
 
70~200 f2.8 65%
24~70 f2.8 25%
16~35 f2.8 10%
2 x mkiii tele convertor
Wanting a 600mm / 800mm saving at the moment ;)
 
I rarely use anything other than a 35mm, 85mm and 45mm T/S. Can do most of what I want to do with a 35mm.
 
Thanks for the responses guys. The reason I asked is because I'm now in a position where I can start to take my hobby seriously. Previously work restricted how much time I had for photography so I gave up and sold what little gear I had. Although I loved getting out and about with the camera I just didn't have the time to do it.

But now I'm in a position where I only need to work 3 days per week and I have the rest of the week free. So at the end of this month I will be buying a new camera body and some lenses to go with it. But I just wondered what the serious hobbyists/enthusiasts used.

Im thinking of starting with a 2nd hand 28-75mm f/2.8 and a 2nd hand 70-200mm f/2.8 and I will buy a new body.
That should cover me for a bit of sports and wildlife and a general walk about lens. And then I'll go from there. I would really like to try my hand at portraits as well at some point.
 
There are so many different types of photographer - especially in the amateur world (but also in the professional world). Each field has it's different needs - both technical, and cognitive. A portrait photographer has different needs to a macro photographer, to a night sky photographer, to a street photographer, to a bird photographer, to a glamour photographer.

You maybe need to find your way. Most of the time (but not exclusively), I like b/w film photography in the street. Too be honest, using old film technology, gear is relatively cheap in this field. I change cameras more than lenses, and despite owning far too many cameras - I don't ever use a zoom lens. It's not snobbery - I've been using primes on both digital and film for several years, and it's all I know. I do have a Sony DSLR set up - and my lenses are a 35mm f/1.8, and a 50mm f/1.8. On my favourite medium format film camera, I use a 150mm f/4 almost exclusively. On 35mm film cameras, I usually use 50/55mm primes.
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
Need or want?

Looking at the shots I take, I could manage with just one lens 80% of the time - because about 80% of the shots I take are with my walkabout prime. My ideal set-up would be just four lenses - 14mm, 23mm, 56mm, 55-200mm - becase that would cover 99% of shots I take and would cover my needs. But it wouldn't cure my vintage glass addiction so there'd need to be 50mm, 85mm and 135mm offerings from Zeiss in the line-up as well to cover my wants..
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Hmm as everyone else has said it's not really a question that has a definitive answer

For me I have

Samyang 8/3.5
Samyang 14/2.8
Canon 17-85/4-5.6 somewhere lol
Canon 24-70/2.8
Sigma 105/2.8
Canon 70-300/4-5.6 this lens basically dead...it either needs to go to the doctors for aligning of elements or to lens heaven as it cannot render an in focus image to save its life
Sigma 150-500/5-6.3

So that's 6/7 lens and all of them serve a purpose

I've also had 2x 50/1.8 and both of them have broken so while I like the focal length I've vowed to not but another till I can afford to purchase the 1.4

I would like to add a few other lens to my bag, namely

Canon 15mm, Canon 16-35/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 I'd also like to upgrade my 105mm to a Canon 100/2.8 macro lens

This is because while I specialise in night time photography I like to dabble in most genres and generally where possible with anything I do I'll always look to build up to best available even if I might start with a cheaper option to get me on the road
 
After years of messing around with all sorts...one, 35mm.

That's all I have now (Sony RX1), when you're that restricted it's surprising how you don't miss any other focal length.
 
Last edited:
one further thing to add ive had the obligatory nifty fifty 3 times.. and sold it each time. sure its cheap and yes its f/1.8 , but its also flimsy as hell and overrated in terms of sharpness and performance.
much happier with my 85mm USM 1.8 which is optically outstanding and solidly built too .
still its horses for courses over what people want and use depending on there primary subject matter.
 
The question really is need or want? Like many I've had a few lenses and tried to cover the whole focal length from 12mm to 600mm on a crop. Earlier this year I thought more about what I need and use the most. I mainly do wildlife but dabble in landscapes and marco so my priority was a telephoto lens. I've now reduce my lens down to just three, a wide angle, a marco, a telephoto zoom and a 1.4tc. I'm hoping this covers all my needs and each has their use.
 
50/1.4 for the vast majority of my photography.
135L for a little slice.
28/1.8 for lightweight landscape/holidays - share's filters with the 50/1.4
17-40L I can't remember the last time I used it along with the Lee filters.
100/2.8 Macro - Currently for sale as I NEVER use it.

So for me. I could get away with 50mm, 28mm & 135mm easily.

I do also have a few manual primes in the 50mm range too though :)
 
Nikon 28-70mm f2.8
Nikon 70-200mm VRII f2.8
Sigma 150mm Macro f2.8
Sigma 120-300mm APO DG HSM f2.8
Sigma 85mm f1.4 EX DG HSM
Nikon 80-400G VRII f4.5-5.6
Nikon 300mm VRII f2.8
Nikon 400mm f2.8

+ the teles...
Sigma 1.4x DG EX
Sigma 2x DG EX
Nikon TC-14E II
Nikon TC-17E II
Nikon TC-2.0E III

They each have a distinct use, but I definitely have a hole that a 14-24 will fill - soon.

How many do I need: - Just the one that is on the end of the camera...
 
I photograph landscapes and architecture. I use cameras from full frame digital, through 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 5x4" film. Hence I have more lenses than I need for a single format.

Short historical digression. When I started photography seriously, the camera to aspire to was a twin lens reflex with a fixed lens. Fixed lens. One lens, and no possibility of any other (unless you bought front mounted converters - not many did). And that was enough for the photographers in those days. Time moves on, and so does back pain from camera bags...

In practice, for my 6x7 camera I have 3 lenses, and only use one of them. I used the wide angle once for a specific landscape photograph in cramped conditions, and that's it.

With 5x4, I started out with one lens, and used it right up until I bought a second one (a massive change from 150mm to 210mm). I haven't yet found a need for more.

On the digital front - well, I borrow my wife's camera which takes the OM lenses from my old 35mm system. I have lenses from 17mm to 500mm. Special occasions require special lenses. A once in a couple of years clear day led to my using the 500mm lens to photograph the Isle of Wight. When I used 35mm in earnest, I went out with a 21mm and a 90mm macro lens, and that covered all I needed. On holiday abroad, I'd take the 21mm, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 75-150mm zoom.

Summing up - the subjects I photograph, and the way I photograph them, means I only need one lens. In fact, in large format, I have more cameras than lenses rather than the other way about.

How many you need depends on your interests and how you photograph them. I'm a firm believer in the idea that you can photograph any subject with any lens - it just might not be the conventional or expected photograph that results. And perhaps that's not a bad thing, really...
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Short historical digression. When I started photography seriously, the camera to aspire to was a twin lens reflex with a fixed lens. Fixed lens. One lens, and no possibility of any other (unless you bought front mounted converters - not many did). And that was enough for the photographers in those days. Time moves on, and so does back pain from camera bags...
Click to expand...

Yup. At one time many people had a camera and one lens, for a very long time that's all I had and when I got a 35mm SLR I still had just the one lens. I've been trying to get back to that minimalist point but I never quite manage it. I do often go out with just one lens but I've got a cupboard full at home.
 
Canon Bob said:
Good advice Stephen :clap:
Click to expand...

"Two years ago I used your Soap, since when I have used no other" - caption under a drawing of a rather disreputable individual shown writing, reproduced as the end paper of the 1898 Pears Shilling Cyclopedia by permission of Punch. Or "King Charles walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off" - although that relies on the (lack of) punctuation for its effect.

What I should have said was that I used that lens without feeling any lack; the second one was a more recent and multicoated one. But if I still had only that one lens, I'd be content.
 
Surely this equation fits where N is the number of lenses owned....

N + 1
 
KryptoNeo said:
I was just wondering how many lenses you need as a photographer.
Click to expand...


As many as you need.

What a strange question. Surely you know. If you're always thinking, "Damn.. I wish I had a wider lens" then you need a wider lens. If you don't... then you don't.

(shrug)
 
I've just updated into digital photography, my old lenses wouldn't work on the new body (Canon), so I've had to start over. To cover most needs I reckon I need:
  1. Ultra Wide Angle Zoom
  2. Standard Zoom
  3. Medium Telephoto Zoom
Anything after that is specialist: things like macros, fisheyes, tilt shifts and long telephotos depending on specific needs.
So I've bought Canon's new 16-35 f4L IS and their hailed 24-70 f2.8L II which covers off 1 and 2. To fulfil 3, I want the 70-200 f2.8 II IS, but I'll wait until I can afford it.

As a stop gap, I've bought their 100 f2.8L IS Macro which will not only let me do macro (obviously), but will double as a portrait lens too.
 
Last edited:
KryptoNeo said:
I was just wondering how many lenses you need as a photographer.

I am a complete novice at photography even though I've had an interest of some sort for a good few years.

I look at some of the glass for sale and I wonder to myself what some of it is used for, what situation?

I like to photograph a bit of everything but sports and wildlife are my favourites and for those two I know I need a good tele zoom lens like a 70-200mm f2.8 or even a 150-400mm.

But what, as a keen enthusiast or even a pro, would you need In your bag for landscapes, portraits, macro etc.. To get the best images of your favourite subjects/styles
Click to expand...

My thing is cityscapes, landscapes. I can shoot pretty much everything on a 24-70f.8 and occassionally use a 21mm for cases I just need a bit wider. There are only a few times I have wanted longer than 70 so bought a cheap old zoom for that.

if/when I move into portraits/weddings I'd use a series of primes for sure just for a bit more speed, a lot less mass in the hand but the 24-70f2.8 isn't half bad either for this sort of thing, just heavy
 
Damn i hav'nt checked the "for sale forum" lately.:exit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top