Which lenses should be in a camera system?

[MJP]

Some manufacturer's face an on going dilemma. Which focal lengths/apertures should be in their systems? Here's my list for 35mm sensors . . .

• 12mm fish eye
• 14-24mm f/2.8
• 24-70mm f/2.8
• 70-200mm f/2.8
• 14-24mm f/2.8 Tilt Shift (this is now available from Hartblei, HCAM Master TS 14-24mm for Sony E-mount)
• 35mm f/1.4
• 50mm f/1 - f/1.2
• 85mm f/1.4
• 100mm f/2.8 Macro
• 135mm f/1.8 - f/2
• 180mm f/2
• 200-400mm f/4.5
• 300-600mm f/5.6

Does this cover it?

[rhythmworx]

I would guess so but I can feel some kind of reveal coming on here.

[MJP]

Should some be leaf shutter lenses for fast flash sync? Thinking strobist here.

I forgot to add in tilt-shift lenses of focal lengths 50 and 90, possibly a macro capable tilt-shift too.

[FracturedRabbit]

and.... you have all of them?

[MJP]

and.... you have all of them?

This is the point. I don't. I don't even have a coherent system. Which bothers me deeply.

I have a bunch of oddball primes, old M42's and some strange zooms like the 8-16. Possibly a more interesting bucket of glass but not so much of a coherent system.

Which is kind of the reason for this topic. What minimum quality (and I mean high quality) glass should a manufacturer offer, either first party or third?

Edited February 13, 2015 by MJP

[sunshine51]

Interesting list M save for the last two zooms;

200-400 & 300-600.

At this focal length I go for prime telephotos

such as the 400 @ 2.8G ED. If I need anything

longer I simply use either the TC14 or TC20

converters. Zooms at these lengths, perhaps

that monster Sigma is an exception, tend to

fall apart every which way and eat heaps of

light with poopy IQ to boot.

The 50mm @ 1.0 or 1.2 is a great choice but

a 58mm @ 1.2 is better because the field of

view is pretty much what our eyes "see".

Mind you...50mm in DX is a great portrait

lens if the subject doesn't mind the camera

that close to their face!

[MJP]

Well, I was thinking about Sony's full frame lenses for E-mount.

Here's the current roadmap . . .

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/more-pictures-of-the-new-fe-lenses-focus-numerique-confirms-official-info-coming-tomorrow/

[sunshine51]

Fuji also has some good ideas...

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/

[MJP]

I think those are only for crop format.

[FracturedRabbit]

I think those are only for crop format.

So? The majority of cameras sold are crop format.

[MJP]

I think those are only for crop format.

So? The majority of cameras sold are crop format.

Otherwise we get into equivalents and we all know how much you love equivalents.

[sunshine51]

But Fuji's X series lenses have some very good specs...and there's nothing "wrong"

with APS-C format either. Canon launched their 1Ds with a 35mm equivalent sensor

(11.1MP) back in 2002 & many photogs switched to Canon. Nikon only launched their

D3 FX (12 MP) camera in 2007 & many photogs returned to Nikon. APS-C is still

widely used in the "pro" arena today. It's not gonna disappear any time too soon...

especially amongst freelancers as they may not have wealthy parents or a bureau

to cough up the dosh for full frame 35mm equivalent kit. There is no difference in

IQ/optics between pro grade lenses in either FF or APS-C format...none at all.

Both sensor formats have their benefits & drawbacks, here is not the place to

indulge in them so I'll leave a good wiki link below for y'all to peruse & contemplate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

We've had minor format squabbles on the photo threads in the past so let's not

return to those days. Shoot with what you have & be out having fun!

[MJP]

But Fuji's X series lenses have some very good specs...and there's nothing "wrong"

with APS-C format either. Canon launched their 1Ds with a 35mm equivalent sensor

(11.1MP) back in 2002 & many photogs switched to Canon. Nikon only launched their

D3 FX (12 MP) camera in 2007 & many photogs returned to Nikon. APS-C is still

widely used in the "pro" arena today. It's not gonna disappear any time too soon...

especially amongst freelancers as they may not have wealthy parents or a bureau

to cough up the dosh for full frame 35mm equivalent kit. There is no difference in

IQ/optics between pro grade lenses in either FF or APS-C format...none at all.

Both sensor formats have their benefits & drawbacks, here is not the place to

indulge in them so I'll leave a good wiki link below for y'all to peruse & contemplate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

We've had minor format squabbles on the photo threads in the past so let's not

return to those days. Shoot with what you have & be out having fun!

It's not that, it's not about which format is better. It's about normalising to 35mm (135 format) first otherwise this gets 1.3 or 1.5 or 1.6 times confused.

[sunshine51]

M...I understand what you mean 100% but...standardisation is a long ways off

from today IMO. FF is still costly & more manufacturers sell "DX" than "FX"

mainly due to the price. If say Can & Nik scrapped APS-C cameras and

only sold FF...they'd be broke within a few years unless they dropped the

price of FF...which they ain't gonna do any time soon.

To me...I could care less about crop factors as I shoot for a crop in edit anyway

so the inherrant crop factor of the sensor means nothing in my case. Plus I

kinda like a FF lens mounted on a DX body for that extra reach at times, it

does come in handy. On the other hand a UWA on a DX body is nearly a

waste of time, especially if you want that really wide end to be all encompassing.

So...we still have to live with crop factors...a minor detail at that IMO.

[MJP]

Let's get the ideal list together based on 135 format and then see what it looks like converted into the various crop formats.

[manarak]

Nowadays, the main factor for picture quality is the lens, and for crop sensor cameras, the cheaper lenses made for DX formats often just aren't performing very well, so the solution here is to put good FX lenses on DX bodies... which makes the crop-sensor body useless, who wants to save 300 bucks on a body when the lens range costs ten times that?

I got a Canon 550D. It's quite a good camera (I should still have gotten a Nikon D7000 instead), but I feel it is being let down by the lenses.

I had a 18-135 kit lens, which I replaced with a Tamron VC II 18-270 and the Tamron performs better in all aspects, but of course a superzoom can't deliver great picture quality. It's a good travel lens though.

The big problem with DX cameras is wideangle, so I added a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, which is actually a pretty good lens.

The Tamron being slow (f/3.5 at 18mm), I experimented with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 prime - this one didn't pan out, the autofocus doesn't work well on it, and I also got the Canon 50mm mk II f/1.8 - supposed to be sharp, but the results disappoint me, I guess the DX sensor will never perform as well as an FX, already because of its size alone.

If I had to do it again, I would go full frame and buy fewer, but better lenses.

I guess I would only need three lenses:

wideangle

fast 50mm prime

superzoom travel lens

Edited February 15, 2015 by manarak

[FracturedRabbit]

Manarak, there are more crop sensor cameras than those put out by Canon and Nikon. My favourite Olympus lenses, for example, are more than a match for the Canon L lenses I used to own.

MJP's original list seems comprehensive, although I would add some longer focal lengths for sports/wildlife photography.

[sunshine51]

Nowadays, the main factor for picture quality is the lens, and for crop sensor cameras, the cheaper lenses made for DX formats often just aren't performing very well, so the solution here is to put good FX lenses on DX bodies... which makes the crop-sensor body useless, who wants to save 300 bucks on a body when the lens range costs ten times that?

I got a Canon 550D. It's quite a good camera (I should still have gotten a Nikon D7000 instead), but I feel it is being let down by the lenses.

I had a 18-135 kit lens, which I replaced with a Tamron VC II 18-270 and the Tamron performs better in all aspects, but of course a superzoom can't deliver great picture quality. It's a good travel lens though.

The big problem with DX cameras is wideangle, so I added a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, which is actually a pretty good lens.

The Tamron being slow (f/3.5 at 18mm), I experimented with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 prime - this one didn't pan out, the autofocus doesn't work well on it, and I also got the Canon 50mm mk II f/1.8 - supposed to be sharp, but the results disappoint me, I guess the DX sensor will never perform as well as an FX, already because of its size alone.

If I had to do it again, I would go full frame and buy fewer, but better lenses.

I guess I would only need three lenses:

wideangle

fast 50mm prime

superzoom travel lens

First off, the lens and quality of it, has always been the determining factor of image quality.

Not just for todays digital cameras but even back in the days of film. This is commensurate with

the quality of the optical glass in the lens...not for the fact that so called "pro" lenses all seem

to have an aperture of f2.8 or less...i.e. f2.0, f1.2 etc. Apertures of so called "pro" lenses became

f 2.8 mainly due to film speeds since a film with a rating of say ASA25 had much finer grain

than a film with an ASA of 200. Shooting ASA 25 film at 1/125th sec a photog needed a lot

of light if their lens had a max aperture of say f4. Manufacturers listened to photogs back then

and came up with an aperture of f2.8...at a cost to the photog but it was cheaper than, say, making

the aperture f1.4...just an example there.

Also the sharpness of an image is directly dependent on the quality of the glass within the lens

and the construction of the lens itself...aka the mechanical bits. That's another reason "pro"

lenses cost much more than the mass produced kit lenses. The internal materials are more

expensive.

With perhaps the exception of two "kit" lenses...Nikons 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and Canons lens of

the same "length". Both are razor sharp & cheaper than dirt at about $100 USD each.

Fact that...not wishful fiction. Always good to have in a camera bag in case the pricey one

gets wasted.

Prime lenses...or fixed focal length lenses, will always be sharper than a zoom lens regardless

of max aperture of the lens if said aperture is within reason. Example a 50mm f1.4 prime lens

will usually produce a sharper image than say a 50mm f3.5 lens will. But not necessarily.

That last sentence is fully dependent on the glass used and how the lens is constructed.

Back in the old days of film we would never use a zoom mainly because they produced

shitty pix and had slow apertures with the fastest being about f4.5 and back then they were

expensive...for being so shitty, concerning the end product which was always to be a sharp

image.

We used primes & "prime telephotos" or fixed focal length telephotos. That's why we carried

a minimum of 3 cameras on a shoot (doing news). One was a WA (21, 24,28,35), next was

either a standard lens (50, 55 or 58) and a reasonable telephoto (200 or 300)...each attached to

a seperate body. The choice of film stock was determined by the agency we worked for and so

was the decision of either colour or mono (B & W). Usually features were shot in colour and

daily stuff in mono. Lens choices were always the photogs and how big his balls were; the

wider the closer, the longer the further away...stuff like that.

Then around the late 80's early 90's zooms became much better & "pro" quality zooms appeared

on the scene. A nice example is my old Nik 80-200 f2.8 AF-D ED which came out in 1997.

Built like a tank & sharp as a razor. Weighs a ton though, however, it will take knocks other

zooms will break under. Up until that lens appeared I only used FFL telephotos.

FFL= Fixed Focal Length. With an aperture of 2.8

Putting an "FX" lens on a "DX" body doesn't make anything useless. One just doesn't get the

advantage of the "FX" lens focal length that's all. For us Nikon users who were "digital" prior to

the D3 entering the scene we had no choice but to use "FX" lenses as "DX" pro lenses were just

not there yet. Canon had Nik trumped back then with their EOS 1Ds and their lens selection was

excellent. BTW...us Nik users were all "DX" prior to the D3...just FYI.

There is no real problem with "DX" cameras & "FX" wide angle lenses if you know how to work

around it. Nikon's 12-24 f4.0 & 17-55 f2.8 are excellent lenses and they're "DX" exclusive...and

expensive. I'm sure Canon have their alternatives also. Great "FX" wide angles work well on "DX"

bodies if you make the right choice of lens, you just have to know how to work with them on a

"DX" body that's all. And the work around for "DX" cameras using "FX" wide angle lenses?

Your feet...remember them?

Regarding performance between "DX" and "FX" sensors...they each have their own benefits and

distractors. "DX" performs much better in low light than "FX"...for now anyway. "FX" performs

much better than "DX" for shallow depth of field. There's other reasons...Google is your friend.

Another distractor is using "DX" lenses on "FX" bodies...you will loose a lotta Mp due to auto

cropping with the "FX" body...but the image will or should still be pretty good...depends on the

photog though.

But by no means is "DX" a crap format. If that were the case there would not be a single APS-C

camera on the market today...right now...at this very moment...and more coming out as I hack

away at this.

This "FX" vs "DX" is a great marketing gimmick. Which is akin to saying "I need 50 megapixels to

get that great shot". Well...if you can't get that great shot with, say, 12 Mp you sure as hell ain't

gonna get it with 50Mp...and that's a fact. That "great shot" depends on many things...one of which

is and most importantly..."good glass"...there are also many other factors involved.

You desire better image quality with what you have? Get better glass...don't blame the body,

it's just a recording device and nothing more. That's all the body will ever be regardless of

factory features included or added...or make.

[MJP]

I've walked up Tintagel Castle today. For the phatographer carrying tripod and pano head and a Domke F-6 full of gear this was an unnatural feat of extreme endurance requiring incredible stamina (read that as every eighth step there was a pause in the name of photographic composition).

So scrub the <deleted> list. Ain't no way I'm carrying all this shit again!

Took the A7r + Induro CT-414/BHL-3 head. Most used lens for landscape was the FE 55/1.8. Also for buildings, or what's left after 2000 years, the Samyang 14/2.8 (my my that's one helluva lens). For a close up on the waterfall, the Tair-11A of all things.

Used multiple ND's for coastal landscapes. The B+W Big Stopper x1000 combined with the B+W ND Vario. Tried combining with the Singh-Ray Gold 'n Blue but it was a dead loss.

Light weight is good. Heavy is not good. Also camera gear needs to be small and light.

Decided the Pentax gear is going up for sale, the Rabbit's quite right. Why suffer?

Here's a taster from Google coz my computer's broke and the new one will be here Thursday . . .

Edited February 15, 2015 by MJP

[sunshine51]

^^^ "Every eighth step..." was that really a pause for photographic composition or

photographer respiration?!

I agree...our kit should be lighter but just as tough as the beasts of today.

Must be a wonderful view from that castle M!

[Phra Ek]

Your list looks comprehensive to me - it should cover all the normal needs for a comprehensive lens system.

Just one thing from me - the list is based on current technology - but with increasing use of electronic in-camera correction for lenses designed by the camera manufacturer - should we be expecting more in the near future?

How about a high quality, weather sealed 24-90 f1.8 constant aperture zoom. With a lens like that we'd only need to add a couple of primes based on our specific needs and we'd be set for the day.

How often do we leave the zoom at home and cart a group of prime lenses with us because we know the mid-range zooms are not really good enough?

And let's be honest - changing lenses when 'in the field' is a nuisance. I'd love a mid range zoom that was as good as the equivalent prime.

As a micro 4/3 user we have the Olympus 12-40 constant f2.8 zoom which comes close to my idea everyday lens.

[manarak]

Your list looks comprehensive to me - it should cover all the normal needs for a comprehensive lens system.

Just one thing from me - the list is based on current technology - but with increasing use of electronic in-camera correction for lenses designed by the camera manufacturer - should we be expecting more in the near future?

How about a high quality, weather sealed 24-90 f1.8 constant aperture zoom. With a lens like that we'd only need to add a couple of primes based on our specific needs and we'd be set for the day.

How often do we leave the zoom at home and cart a group of prime lenses with us because we know the mid-range zooms are not really good enough?

And let's be honest - changing lenses when 'in the field' is a nuisance. I'd love a mid range zoom that was as good as the equivalent prime.

As a micro 4/3 user we have the Olympus 12-40 constant f2.8 zoom which comes close to my idea everyday lens.

never understood the micro 4/3, since the lenses are still nearly as big... they always bullshit the customers by making ads that show micro 4/3 bodies with a pancake lens on, and all the girlies go "ooooh so small so cute", but for any real use, it won't fit in her pocket anymore.

[FracturedRabbit]

Your list looks comprehensive to me - it should cover all the normal needs for a comprehensive lens system.

Just one thing from me - the list is based on current technology - but with increasing use of electronic in-camera correction for lenses designed by the camera manufacturer - should we be expecting more in the near future?

How about a high quality, weather sealed 24-90 f1.8 constant aperture zoom. With a lens like that we'd only need to add a couple of primes based on our specific needs and we'd be set for the day.

How often do we leave the zoom at home and cart a group of prime lenses with us because we know the mid-range zooms are not really good enough?

And let's be honest - changing lenses when 'in the field' is a nuisance. I'd love a mid range zoom that was as good as the equivalent prime.

As a micro 4/3 user we have the Olympus 12-40 constant f2.8 zoom which comes close to my idea everyday lens.

never understood the micro 4/3, since the lenses are still nearly as big... they always bullshit the customers by making ads that show micro 4/3 bodies with a pancake lens on, and all the girlies go "ooooh so small so cute", but for any real use, it won't fit in her pocket anymore.

They are not nearly as big, nor as heavy. They don't fit in your pocket, but neither do they need a sodding great backpack.

[Phra Ek]

Your list looks comprehensive to me - it should cover all the normal needs for a comprehensive lens system.

Just one thing from me - the list is based on current technology - but with increasing use of electronic in-camera correction for lenses designed by the camera manufacturer - should we be expecting more in the near future?

How about a high quality, weather sealed 24-90 f1.8 constant aperture zoom. With a lens like that we'd only need to add a couple of primes based on our specific needs and we'd be set for the day.

How often do we leave the zoom at home and cart a group of prime lenses with us because we know the mid-range zooms are not really good enough?

And let's be honest - changing lenses when 'in the field' is a nuisance. I'd love a mid range zoom that was as good as the equivalent prime.

As a micro 4/3 user we have the Olympus 12-40 constant f2.8 zoom which comes close to my idea everyday lens.

never understood the micro 4/3, since the lenses are still nearly as big... they always bullshit the customers by making ads that show micro 4/3 bodies with a pancake lens on, and all the girlies go "ooooh so small so cute", but for any real use, it won't fit in her pocket anymore.

I don't want to hijack a lens system thread with a discussion on formats so I'll not reply.

Nope, sorry - I can't help it ..... :-)

I agree that the most micro 4/3 are not really pocket cameras (except maybe the latest Lumix GM series with a small pancake or compact zoom lens) but the total system is much smaller than full frame equivalent. I have a 90-300mm (35 mm equivalent) zoom that is half the length and weight of a full-frame equivalent, and the Olympus 45mm prime is less than half the weight of a full-frame 90mm. So I can carry a body and three lenses and a flash in a small bag that is designed for just a camera plus one lens. Weight and size of lenses mounts up when you want to carry a range of lenses around with you all day - so total system weight and bulk is much less with micro 4/3 than APS-C or full-frame.

And from what I've seen of girl photographers in Asia - I think size does matter - and they seem to be sporting the biggest full frame DSLR's they can carry.

But to try and get back on topic - if there was one really good lens that could cover 24-90mm with a nice wide constant aperture, then I would only need to carry one lens - so I'd go for full-frame for the IQ and not worry about total system size/weight.

[FracturedRabbit]

I've walked up Tintagel Castle today. For the phatographer carrying tripod and pano head and a Domke F-6 full of gear this was an unnatural feat of extreme endurance requiring incredible stamina (read that as every eighth step there was a pause in the name of photographic composition).

So scrub the <deleted> list. Ain't no way I'm carrying all this shit again!

Took the A7r + Induro CT-414/BHL-3 head. Most used lens for landscape was the FE 55/1.8. Also for buildings, or what's left after 2000 years, the Samyang 14/2.8 (my my that's one helluva lens). For a close up on the waterfall, the Tair-11A of all things.

Used multiple ND's for coastal landscapes. The B+W Big Stopper x1000 combined with the B+W ND Vario. Tried combining with the Singh-Ray Gold 'n Blue but it was a dead loss.

Light weight is good. Heavy is not good. Also camera gear needs to be small and light.

Decided the Pentax gear is going up for sale, the Rabbit's quite right. Why suffer?

Here's a taster from Google coz my computer's broke and the new one will be here Thursday . . .

So you were selling the Sony, and now you are selling the Pentax. What's left?

[fimgirl]

But to try and get back on topic - if there was one really good lens that could cover 24-90mm with a nice wide constant aperture, then I would only need to carry one lens - so I'd go for full-frame for the IQ and not worry about total system size/weight.

One reason I hold onto my 5DMK2 is I have such a lens. It's a Conurus converted Zeiss Contax N24-85mm AF zoom.

Not a constant aperture but Zeiss on a Canon !

[MJP]

What's left hopefully will be the tripod, monopod, pano head, bags, FE 55/1.8 and Samyang 14/2.8 and Revuenon 55/1.2, Rayqual adapter. Everything else gone, all Pentax gear and the A7r.

[Whale]

I would probably question the higher focal lengths being zooms

• 200-400mm f/4.5
• 300-600mm f/5.6

There are major sections of photography that these focal lengths are primarily popular in (birds, wildlife, sports) that require the accuracy of a prime, and higher shutter speeds (i.e. through 2.8s and 4s).

For me personally........ I would like to see 300 f4 and 2.8, 400 f4, 500 f4 and 600 f4

[neverdie]

What's left hopefully will be the tripod, monopod, pano head, bags, FE 55/1.8 and Samyang 14/2.8 and Revuenon 55/1.2, Rayqual adapter. Everything else gone, all Pentax gear and the A7r.

Then you can grab yourself a Nikon D810. Great camera......smooth as silk

[MJP]

What's left hopefully will be the tripod, monopod, pano head, bags, FE 55/1.8 and Samyang 14/2.8 and Revuenon 55/1.2, Rayqual adapter. Everything else gone, all Pentax gear and the A7r.

Then you can grab yourself a Nikon D810. Great camera......smooth as silk

Sony A7rII or A9. Now way I'm carrying a load of gear round anymore.