How many lenses do you need?

I have 5 lenses covering the range from 24 to 500mm, do I want more, well if someone's willing to give me a whole lot of cash :D, I'll quite happily add to my gear, and if they're feeling that generous, I'll have a 1DX thrown in as well :naughty:

It depends what you want to photography and can afford, or are allowed to buy
 
I don't think I need more as I have probably too many already. 6 covering 14mm to 500mm.

I rarely use my 70-200 f2.8 MkII, only twice this year I think. Similarly my 300 f4, three times this year I think.

80% of my photography is with the 500.

But I'm trying to broaden my photography into landscapes and macro so the 14mm, 17-40mm and 100mm hopefully will get some regular use.

But selling the least used lenses isn't an option coz then I'd miss them and have to buy them again.
 
I'am pretty much covered and happy with the 6 lenses I have a Fisheye, wide angle, standard, macro, telephoto & Super telephoto and 2 converters ranging from 16mm to 680mm
 
I don't know that much of this is on record, but I bet that if you could know what lenses many published, respected and even revered photographers owned / carried / used, you'd find that most were lens-light rather than lens-heavy. Being image-hungry is one thing, whilst being equipment-hungry is probably a disease. Ask HCB, McCullin, Koudelka, Bailey - pick names out of a hat.

A lot of photographic images especially in the amateur and stock photography realms look as if the lens took the photo, rather than the photographer. Look, wide angle shot! Look, telephoto shot! Ha! Clever stuff! Boring.

If I was to spend a year or the rest of my life with a single lens, one about 75mm would be right (now there's a gap in the market). An 85 would do. Or a 50. I grant that birders and 'insecteers' have special needs (!). And some people have a wide angle mentality, which can be respected if the results ring true but is often repetitively formulaic.

So I need ONE lens, but happen to own three, and normally carry just two of them. I should add that none of them ZOOM, and neither do they AUTOFOCUS.

Back to the thread? I never left it.
 
droj said:
I don't know that much of this is on record, but I bet that if you could know what lenses many published, respected and even revered photographers owned / carried / used, you'd find that most were lens-light rather than lens-heavy.
Click to expand...

The Amateur Photographer's Handbook (I read it in 1965, so note that styles change) had a very interesting analysis from a photo exhibition of various photographers' work giving percentages for aperture, focal length and shutter speed. The vast majority used "middle of the road" values for all three variables. I carried out a similar analysis using the info given in a book of Joe Cornish's photos to see what lenses he used, with the same result - not a lot needed for the vast majority.
 
StephenM said:
The Amateur Photographer's Handbook (I read it in 1965, so note that styles change) had a very interesting analysis from a photo exhibition of various photographers' work giving percentages for aperture, focal length and shutter speed. The vast majority used "middle of the road" values for all three variables. I carried out a similar analysis using the info given in a book of Joe Cornish's photos to see what lenses he used, with the same result - not a lot needed for the vast majority.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the same here. For my style of photography - street, candid, snapshot, portrait - a "middle of the road" prime lens suffices. I do like a 150mm lens on my 6 x 6 Bronica (rather than the middle of the road 80mm), but that is partly down to just liking that lens.
 
Last edited:
When we went to Australia this year, I decided to take 10-20mm, 15-85mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 1.4x, 2.0x, 430EX II, a Redged TSA-322K and both bodies (50D and 20D). Used the 50D and 15-85mm most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top