One camera one lens

It's interesting to see that the general consensus seems to be that if you have an SLR you per default also need a plethora of lenses to go with it.

You don't need a different lens for every type of photography you do, even more so if you dont do photography for a living; that's just equipment whoring and reiterating what "professionals" recommend.

If you cant take a landscape photo with the 24-105 because it's not wide enough, or a portrait photo because it's too slow; well, sir, then in my opinion you need to work on your photographic skills because pretty much any lens would do the job. It's how you use it.

As a always on general usage lens I'm tempted to recommend a 50mm lens, and the use of your legs. It's amazing how much fun they are to use and they work quite well for most things. My personal work horse is the 24-70, but depending on budget and size requirements it might not be suitable.
No one is saying that it is impossible to take good pictures using that lens (and since buying it it's become by far my most used lens). What I am saying is that it is a pointless limitation to build into a system that's biggest benefit is in the variety available. Just because a 24mm landscape looks nice doesn't mean a 15mm lens capturing the same scene wouldn't look better. And the benefit of buying a camera with a changeable lens is that you can make that decision for every shot.

For what it is worth, until relatively recently almost all my photography was produced using a 50mm - that is how I learned. I know how to make use of the limitations of a single lens as well as most. But now I am taking it more seriously I have a kit to ensure I don't miss out on the best shot due to a lack of equipment.

I really don't shoot at 14mm or 300mm very often. They're there for when I want them.
 
No one is saying that it is impossible to take good pictures using that lens (and since buying it it's become by far my most used lens). What I am saying is that it is a pointless limitation to build into a system that's biggest benefit is in the variety available. Just because a 24mm landscape looks nice doesn't mean a 15mm lens capturing the same scene wouldn't look better. And the benefit of buying a camera with a changeable lens is that you can make that decision for every shot.

For what it is worth, until relatively recently almost all my photography was produced using a 50mm - that is how I learned. I know how to make use of the limitations of a single lens as well as most. But now I am taking it more seriously I have a kit to ensure I don't miss out on the best shot due to a lack of equipment.

I really don't shoot at 14mm or 300mm very often. They're there for when I want them.

Absolutely, I do not disagree with your reasoning. But it's geared towards how you do things, and your needs. It's great that you take things more seriously and get the equipment you need for that; but it doesn't mean that anyone else can't be serious about it and still not have a UWA lens.

Also, you said about the 24-105: "It isn't wide enough for landscape, long enough for wildlife or fast enough for portraiture. It's a good walkabout lens - nothing more.". I've taken landscapes with it. I've taken portraits with it. They all came out great. So that statement is true for you, not in general. Could the landscape have been better using a UWA lens? Who knows, it's a subjective view after all.

I personally don't like to stack up equipment for the "just in case" case. Mainly because I don't like to spend lots of money on stuff that's just laying around. For me, there's more value in having two lenses that get used equally and covers what I need, rather than having 5 lenses out of which 3 are just there because "I might want them".

There's also a big difference between want and need. Sure, I want a 16-36L lens, but I do not need it. So I'm not going to buy it just because I might want it that one day where I'm out in some cool landscape scenery. Because I know I can get the shot I want with what I have; it's my style of photography after all.

Anyway; now that I've successfully had my morning coffee, argued over cameras on the Internet, and argued with the lady for disturbing her reading - I'm going to grab my camera and ONE lens, and go take some pictures.

:)
 
I think this thread is going nowhere fast :thinking: unless bellair is abit more forthcoming with some answers to questions posed by the TP members who have taken the time to post on this thread in the attempt to give some guidance with the question he posed. (which he has failed to do :bang:)
 
I think this thread is going nowhere fast :thinking: unless bellair is abit more forthcoming with some answers to questions posed by the TP members who have taken the time to post on this thread in the attempt to give some guidance with the question he posed. (which he has failed to do :bang:)
Dear Mr Rush i havnt been forthcoming as you say because i dont suffer fools lightly like these 2 members RevOnline and Arkady who seem incapable of giving a novice an answer without trying to ridicule them so i would go along with you and agree this thread should be closed, as i dont want those 2 jumping in again with arrogant answers which will only inflame things even more thank you please close Brian Bell:)
 
Dear Mr Rush i havnt been forthcoming as you say because i dont suffer fools lightly like these 2 members RevOnline and Arkady who seem incapable of giving a novice an answer without trying to ridicule them so i would go along with you and agree this thread should be closed, as i dont want those 2 jumping in again with arrogant answers which will only inflame things even more thank you please close Brian Bell:)

Well kiss my shiny metal ass...

I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer:

...I own a 17-37; 24-70 and a 70-200 all in f/2.8, which covers pretty much everything as far as the focal-lengths I need.
Why then do I also own a 50mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.4 and a 60mm f/2.8 macro lens?

Because those lenses while covering 99% of shooting situations don't do everything equally well...

Sometimes I want a narrower depth of field for portraits with a bit of added 'oomph', sometimes I want to get closer to small objects...

While you can use one lens for a lot of your work, the whole point of investing in an SLR-based system is precisely because of the interchangeable lens capability.

If you just want one lens, buy a decent compact.

If you choose to ignore it then that's your problem.

Sorry if it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear - maybe if you just want your preconceptions pandered to, you should try going elsewhere for advice...?
 
Dear Mr Rush i havnt been forthcoming as you say because i dont suffer fools lightly like these 2 members RevOnline and Arkady who seem incapable of giving a novice an answer without trying to ridicule them so i would go along with you and agree this thread should be closed, as i dont want those 2 jumping in again with arrogant answers which will only inflame things even more thank you please close Brian Bell:)

well, errr...Brian....you're a liar. Youre not a novice, and youre not called Brian.

we dont suffer fools lightly here as you well know, as youve already been banned once. Nearly got the right user name this timebut you spelt END wrong.
ladies and gents, Ray the Fab is leaving again. :wave:
 
I think that means that everyone I've argued with on TP has been banned at the end of it.

I hope to maintain this run in the future.
 
As a always on general usage lens I'm tempted to recommend a 50mm lens, and the use of your legs. It's amazing how much fun they are to use and they work quite well for most things. My personal work horse is the 24-70, but depending on budget and size requirements it might not be suitable.

I Agree with you. I think a 50mm fits in the portfolio with a 24-70mm (use this lens most too). I always take only one of these lenses with me. Sometimes you just want a lighter lens carring with you.
I own a 17-37; 24-70 and a 70-200 all in f/2.8, which covers pretty much everything as far as the focal-lengths I need.
Why then do I also own a 50mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.4 and a 60mm f/2.8 macro lens?

Because those lenses while covering 99% of shooting situations don't do everything equally well...

Agree with you too, but sometimes using a 50mm instead a 24-70mm is quite comfortable. It's lighter, smaller and keep you fit. :lol:
If you know before what you are going to do such as visiting your friends at home or taking some standard photos of people, a 50mm on your 5D Mk II is enough. The 5D Mk II has also enough backup for cropping.
 
well, errr...Brian....you're a liar. Youre not a novice, and youre not called Brian.

we dont suffer fools lightly here as you well know, as youve already been banned once. Nearly got the right user name this timebut you spelt END wrong.
ladies and gents, Ray the Fab is leaving again. :wave:

Crikey him again. Some folk are really persistent!
 
I Agree with you. I think a 50mm fits in the portfolio with a 24-70mm (use this lens most too). I always take only one of these lenses with me. Sometimes you just want a lighter lens carring with you.


Agree with you too, but sometimes using a 50mm instead a 24-70mm is quite comfortable. It's lighter, smaller and keep you fit. :lol:
If you know before what you are going to do such as visiting your friends at home or taking some standard photos of people, a 50mm on your 5D Mk II is enough. The 5D Mk II has also enough backup for cropping.

That's what I was getting at...I too go out sometimes with just a 35mm f/2 lens on for the day, but it's in the knowledge that I have other options available to me should I need them.

If I were going into an unknown situation, I'd take everything and make a decision as to what lens to use once I was there.
 
Can someone edit the title to the correct spelling of 'lens'?

It's really bugging me :bang:

:D
 
Back
Top