How many lenses do you really need?

[frisket]

Hello all,

This is my first post on this forum so here goes.

I started photography as a child of the 80's but the real photographer in me came out in the digital era.

I bought a Canon 5D and a 50mm f1.4 as a popular camera magazine recommended to:

"Invest in the most camera body you can afford as you will develop into it"

After a few years playing with the electrical wizardry in front of me, bigger better, faster, super duper marketing hype took over and I found myself collecting glass which I 'had' to get. More fool me.

One day I had an epiphany (although at this time I had a 1DMkIII), sod the lot of this, it's a never ending spiral of cost, carrot and stick!

Unfortunately I'm a photographer of the consumer age, or am I.

I have recently bought an RF camera and a fast 50mm lens (some of the best pictures I had taken were with a 50mm f.14).

I'm not saying that my photography has come on leaps and bounds by the back to basics approach, but I sure do appreciate and enjoy the moment, rather than taking part in the camera plus 1 show and seeing something I had little control of.

My (long winded) question is this, how many of the amateur photographers here (the ones who shoot for enjoyment) started digital and have reverted back to using film?

With the current climate of the credit crunch and the world is going to end, are we seeing the demise of the throw away convenience only consumer?

Can I, or you, get by with one lens?

 

[tbarker13]

Of course you can get by with one lens. You might even thrive with it.
I personally like to have a few more options, with a kit of 5-6 lenses. However, I rarely have more than two or three with me at any one time.

So much of it depends on your individual shooting style.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Hello all,

This is my first post on this forum so here goes.

I started photography as a child of the 80's but the real photographer in me came out in the digital era.

I bought a Canon 5D and a 50mm f1.4 as a popular camera magazine recommended to:

"Invest in the most camera body you can afford as you will develop into it"

After a few years playing with the electrical wizardry in front of me, bigger better, faster, super duper marketing hype took over and I found myself collecting glass which I 'had' to get. More fool me.

One day I had an epiphany (although at this time I had a 1DMkIII), sod the lot of this, it's a never ending spiral of cost, carrot and stick!

Unfortunately I'm a photographer of the consumer age, or am I.

I have recently bought an RF camera and a fast 50mm lens (some of the best pictures I had taken were with a 50mm f.14).

I'm not saying that my photography has come on leaps and bounds by the back to basics approach, but I sure do appreciate and enjoy the moment, rather than taking part in the camera plus 1 show and seeing something I had little control of.

My (long winded) question is this, how many of the amateur photographers here (the ones who shoot for enjoyment) started digital and have reverted back to using film?

With the current climate of the credit crunch and the world is going to end, are we seeing the demise of the throw away convenience only consumer?

Can I, or you, get by with one lens?

Well, let's see. You're asking more than one question.

1. How many people have reverted to film? Different tools for different purposes. To me that's like asking how many people have switched from screwdrivers to hammers. REAL photographers use both.

2. How many lenses can I get by with? Well, I collect cameras, in several formats, and so I can't share one lens among over 100 cameras. I tend to use several cameras during a typical shoot, with prime lenses installed (I hate zooms and I don't like stopping to change lenses). I don't think I could use a wide angle lens for shooting goldfinches at 50 yards. I don't think I could use a normal lens for shooting portraits. I need a moderately wide angle lens for landscapes though and a normal lens is best for shooting full-length nudes. I guess the answer is: lots.

 

[cosmonaut]

You can get by fine with the one fast one, but I use three. 15,50,75mm. At times I wish I had a 28mm

 

[feenej]

Three: a 35, a 50 and a 100mm.

 

[back alley]

to paraphrase and re-interpret...

beware the man with one lens.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Of course you can get by with one lens. You might even thrive with it.
I personally like to have a few more options, with a kit of 5-6 lenses. However, I rarely have more than two or three with me at any one time.

So much of it depends on your individual shooting style.

Actually, it depends a hell of a lot more on what you are shooting.

 

[kmerenkov]

Hey,
I too, started in digital, then was converted to using film. I used 50mm for about three seasons and wanted something wider. I was afraid to go very wide and bought 40mm.

Month-two later:
I think I am disappointed in it. It gives nice picture and all but I just can’t understand this lens. It isn’t wide, it isn’t normal. It is something I can’t get and used to work with.

I was missing my 50mm a lot, and now I finally bought an adapter to mount screw-mount 50mm FSU lens to my leica-m camera.

So, about the lenses... I'd like to have: 50 (have to buy something better than jupiter-8), 28/35 (not sure yet, have to buy), 75/90 (sometimes you miss it a lot).
What about carrying lenses around: I usually carry one both with my SLR or RF cameras, I mount and carry only one lens, if I am not going on vacation.

I don't think that you need a lot of lenses, usually when I like one - I use it instead of another. Maybe that's pretty amateur point of view. But hey, that's the hobby.

P.S. Welcome on-board.

 

[tbarker13]

Actually, it depends a hell of a lot more on what you are shooting.

I don't know. I consider shooting style to entail the subject matter as well. If you like to shoot documentary stuff, you can probably do quite well without macro lenses, extreme wides and massive telephotos.
Find what you like to shoot and then figure out what equipment is needed to shoot it. It might be as simple as one camera and a 50mm lens. Or it might be far more complicated (and expensive), requiring multiple bodies and a host of wide angles and telephotos.
The great thing about photography is that every individual gets to choose their approach.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I started shooting film in about 1975. I didn't do uch for the latter half as I didn't have a darkroom and hated what I got from shop labs.

I converted fully to digital with a 5D a couple of years ago and started off with a two zoom kit. The I bought a small number of primes because I prefer them still. Most of my shooting recently has been 50mm or 35mm, but that's partly because of the subjects I've shot.

Recently I've started shooting some film again using my old AE1 or Zorki 4k, either canon 50 1.8 or jupiter 8. Thoroughly enjoying using a rangefinder for the first time in 30 years, but needing to work out how to scan effectviely as I still have no possiblity of a darkroom!

If I could only have one lens it would be a fast 50. To that I like to add something wider and a short tele. (This proably means I missed my vocation with slrs...)

Mike.

 

[35mmdelux]

21, 35, 90mms should cover it all.

 

[Pherdinand]

I need three lenses, really.
Two in my eyes and one on a camera.

But it's not a matter of need...it's a matter of can have.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

As for moving from digital to film, I've always used film. Occasionally I get tempted by DSLRs (usually Pentax) but I've never bit the bullet. Maybe someday.

As for how many lenses are needed, the answer will obviously vary greatly from one photographer to the next. I use a 50mm lens most of the time, but that's dictated by my taste in subject matter and esthetics. I mostly take pictures of people and details (for lack of a better word), and I find it easier to take such pictures with a narrowish field of view. I use 35mm as well, but I find it too wide most of the time.

One closing remark: I'm wary of people who use everything from super-wides to telephoto. Most interesting photographs are made by people who have taken the time and effort to develop a way of seeing the world. This usually involves a fairly limited range of field of view. More power to hobbyists who want to take photos of architectural interiors one day and critters hiding in distant foliage the next, but in my experience, it's unlikely that either photo will be very good.

 

[BillBingham2]

Frisket,

IMHO it depends on lots of things, mostly how you view your images and how you want to work.

My first real RF kit was 21/35/90. I moved to a 15/25/35/85 kit, then a 15/25/40/105. Now my son's kit (sitting aside waiting for a spark) is 15/35/75. Then I went Nikon. My S2 kit was 25/50/105 and I was quite happy. Now with an S3-2000 my kit is 25/35/50/105. The only reason I have a 35 is because I have built in frame lines. I like the 35 but frankly added it just because of the built in frame lines. I LOVE the 25.

I think you can get buy with one lens and be very happy. For me I see things differently at different time so a single lens does not make me really happy. While I have to admit I'm testing that theory with my GR-D and the 28mm she has. I'm quite happy most of the time with it but often I want something longer, so for now it's looking like I am a two or three lens guy.

A lot depends on what you see when you look at a potential scene. The DSLR set of lenses I've built will give me a 35/85/270 system. I like the 35/85 combo and when I want to reach out, I really miss my old 300/4.5 ED-IF. I will have the GR-D as a 28 wide and second camera back up so I'm fat dumb and happy.

I had a carry kit that I took on business trips which as a 35/3.5 and a 90/4 which worked well for walking around different places, but when I'm going out to shoot I'm happier with three.

There are some folks here who do great with a single lens and their stuff ROCKS. If that is the way you see images then you can and will be very happy.

On the other side of the equation are folks with lots. I used to carry two SLR bodies, five or seven lenses and two flashes on vacation. Then I realized I was not enjoying my time as I was worrying about the gear. I looked to RF as a way to cut back in weight and size. I think it helps that RF lenses are smaller than most SLR stuff out there (other than OM stuff).

If Ricoh came out with a GR-DT with a built in 60/2.8 lens .......

B2 (;->

 

[ferider]

One lens only works well, but then I would not use an interchangeable RF. As single lens 35mm camera, the Hexar AF would have everything I need.

With an interchangable RF, the minimum is two, and I would pick either
28/50 or 35/75. The best triple lens combo for me is 28/50/90.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[raid]

The 50mm should be sufficient. That's my opinion.

 

[Keith]

My pic would be 35 50 90 but if I had to restrict myself to one lens I would probably have to get a 40 which I don't have. It's the only focal length that would make sense as I often find myself alternating between 35 and 50 for general shooting.

They got it so right with the M2! 🙂

 

[Bill Blackwell]

My initial reaction to your post reminded me of the very wise words of my Jr. High School photography teacher, Walter Nash. "Don't get caught up with gadgets - they won't help you take better pictures." In other words, less is better.

But after reading some of the replies and recognizing the different needs of various photographers, I realized... in reality, less is better. Certainly, three lenses (wide, standard, and long) should be more than sufficient.

 

[pagpow]

Answering the title question -- just one more than I have at the time. Seems reasonable, no? "Want" is a different matter.

Hello all,

This is my first post on this forum so here goes.

I started photography as a child of the 80's but the real photographer in me came out in the digital era.

I bought a Canon 5D and a 50mm f1.4 as a popular camera magazine recommended to:

"Invest in the most camera body you can afford as you will develop into it"

After a few years playing with the electrical wizardry in front of me, bigger better, faster, super duper marketing hype took over and I found myself collecting glass which I 'had' to get. More fool me.

One day I had an epiphany (although at this time I had a 1DMkIII), sod the lot of this, it's a never ending spiral of cost, carrot and stick!

Unfortunately I'm a photographer of the consumer age, or am I.

I have recently bought an RF camera and a fast 50mm lens (some of the best pictures I had taken were with a 50mm f.14).

I'm not saying that my photography has come on leaps and bounds by the back to basics approach, but I sure do appreciate and enjoy the moment, rather than taking part in the camera plus 1 show and seeing something I had little control of.

My (long winded) question is this, how many of the amateur photographers here (the ones who shoot for enjoyment) started digital and have reverted back to using film?

With the current climate of the credit crunch and the world is going to end, are we seeing the demise of the throw away convenience only consumer?

Can I, or you, get by with one lens?

 

[oftheherd]

...

I'm wary of people who use everything from super-wides to telephoto. Most interesting photographs are made by people who have taken the time and effort to develop a way of seeing the world. This usually involves a fairly limited range of field of view. More power to hobbyists who want to take photos of architectural interiors one day and critters hiding in distant foliage the next, but in my experience, it's unlikely that either photo will be very good.

Don't be wary, be scared ...

You're kidding right? You like to confine yourself and other do not. I got back into photography in the 70s with an SLR and a 50mm lens only. It didn't take long to realize that although I was happy with the 50mm most of the time, I desired to photograph things that required wide and telephoto sometimes. I got the then usual 28mm and 135mm. I then realized 28mm wasn't wide enough. I got an 18mm and a 35mm. You wouldn't believe how little I have used the 35mm.

I have a lot more lenses that than now, but I wouldn't carry a whole bunch under normal circumstances, although I would try to have several handy in my car if not in my bag. That said there are times when I only want one or two lenses.

Point? If you have them, take what you think you will need.