Which lenses should be in a camera system?

MJP · February 20, 2015

Oooo . . . a 35/1.4.

Oooo . . . a 16-35/4

Oooo . . . a "Large aperture prime" . . . bet that's the 50/1.2 or even 50/1.

Oooo . . . FARCK! This'll cost a shed load.

Edited February 20, 2015 by MJP

hanno · February 20, 2015

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.

I wouldn't. I have a 150-600mm which not only costs less than 1/10th of a prime 600mm, it also weighs only a fraction.

sunshine51 · February 21, 2015

^^^ Good choice Hanno, however I prefer a FFL telephoto regardless of the cost.

I also have Niks 70-200 @ 2.8 & their old 80-200 @2.8; built like a tank & weighs

as much, and can take knocks that will wreck that 70-200. The choice is really up

to the individual & what they wanna spend...in the end. Plus what the FFL tele will

mainly be used for if one goes that route. I got my 400 for work in some African

nations along with Niks 1.4x & 2x TC's. Cape Buffalo & Elephants along with many

other animals are very cantankerous & a 200 is just not long enough...even though

I do have brass balls...I'm not daft...not yet anyway. The 300 would have been a

good choice also but the 400 was "on sale"...hah!

Edited February 21, 2015 by sunshine51

hanno · February 21, 2015

^^^ Good choice Hanno, however I prefer a FFL telephoto regardless of the cost.

I also have Niks 70-200 @ 2.8 & their old 80-200 @2.8; built like a tank & weighs

as much, and can take knocks that will wreck that 70-200. The choice is really up

to the individual & what they wanna spend...in the end.

Agreed but I cannot justify cost or weight. There are no hides or such where I do most of my birding and I cannot lug a lens like that (plus tripod and gimbal head as well as bins, scope and assorted other stuff). If I were in Europe, I would consider it.

I have the Canon 70-210/2.8 which is one of my favorite pieces of glass.

sunshine51 · February 21, 2015

^^^ Just never end up like this dude! This is not fun nor relaxing...

and the money ya get ain't that much these days either...

emanphoto · February 21, 2015

I could never carry that much gear. Nor could I afford it, unfortunately. I have 2 lenses: the Canon 24-105 and the 100mm macro to go on my 6D. The 24-105 covers all the focal lengths I used to carry for 35mm. If I need wider I'll rent a 16-35. Absolutely the primes, whatever brand, are going to be sharper but for most of my purposes the zoom is fine via Lightrroom corrections for distortion and fringing.

sunshine51 · February 21, 2015

^^^ And the dude in my above post is photographing....golf.

MJP · February 21, 2015

These forthcoming 50mp sensors on full frame may offer the ability to crop the hell out of a frame negating the requirement for so much optical zoom.

I'm finding this with the A7r and its puny 36.4mp's already. You can crop the bananas out of a frame and it makes very little difference in usable quality.

Another thing. Why are lenses so massive and heavy these days? I have the tiny Carl Zeiss Jena DDR 135/3.5, I mean a 135 format 135mm lens that's tack sharp that's easily pocketable and that was produced in what, the 70's?.Hell, even the Tair 11A is a 135/2.8 and it's not that big compared to today's offerings.

hanno · February 22, 2015

Agreed. I am a Canon man but I do have a small Nikon as it is the only waterproof interchangeable lens camera out there and the lens is awesome.

MJP · February 22, 2015

Just picked up a Sony G FE 70-200 f/4 with OSS.

Decided on my travel kit.

Samyang 14/2.8 (in K-mount adapted to E-mount)

Sony Zeiss FE 35/1.4 (coming soon and depending on reviews)

Revuenon 55mm f/1.2 (in K-mount adapted to E-mount

Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8

Sony G FE 70-200 f/4

Pentax D-FA 100/2.8 Macro WR adapted to E-mount

This is all the glass I'll ever use so now need to sell off the rest of the gear, although may keep hold of the Pentax FA Limited's (31/43/77) for now and sell when Pentax comes out with the full frame later on in the year.

Desperately need to lighten the load.

Goshawk · February 24, 2015

this should be in my system . . .

. . . and it may well be very soon. (once i've tried one, to see if it's up to scratch - Tammy's cheaper i know, but i like the build on this thing better)

hanno · February 24, 2015

this should be in my system . . .

. . . and it may well be very soon. (once i've tried one, to see if it's up to scratch - Tammy's cheaper i know, but i like the build on this thing better)

I just got myself the Tamron and the build is pretty good. I will take it through its paces in Bang Poo this Friday and report back:-)

FracturedRabbit · February 25, 2015

These forthcoming 50mp sensors on full frame may offer the ability to crop the hell out of a frame negating the requirement for so much optical zoom.

I'm finding this with the A7r and its puny 36.4mp's already. You can crop the bananas out of a frame and it makes very little difference in usable quality.

Another thing. Why are lenses so massive and heavy these days? I have the tiny Carl Zeiss Jena DDR 135/3.5, I mean a 135 format 135mm lens that's tack sharp that's easily pocketable and that was produced in what, the 70's?.Hell, even the Tair 11A is a 135/2.8 and it's not that big compared to today's offerings.

The auto-focus mechanism?

Goshawk · February 25, 2015

I just got myself the Tamron and the build is pretty good. I will take it through its paces in Bang Poo this Friday and report back:-)

the perfect testing ground! just be careful it doesn't get covered in Gull cr@p . . .

hanno · February 25, 2015

I just got myself the Tamron and the build is pretty good. I will take it through its paces in Bang Poo this Friday and report back:-)

the perfect testing ground! just be careful it doesn't get covered in Gull cr@p . . .

I was there a couple of weeks ago but as nobody was feeding them, the gulls stayed civil.

MJP · February 25, 2015

These forthcoming 50mp sensors on full frame may offer the ability to crop the hell out of a frame negating the requirement for so much optical zoom.

I'm finding this with the A7r and its puny 36.4mp's already. You can crop the bananas out of a frame and it makes very little difference in usable quality.

Another thing. Why are lenses so massive and heavy these days? I have the tiny Carl Zeiss Jena DDR 135/3.5, I mean a 135 format 135mm lens that's tack sharp that's easily pocketable and that was produced in what, the 70's?.Hell, even the Tair 11A is a 135/2.8 and it's not that big compared to today's offerings.

The auto-focus mechanism?

My Pentax Limited's 31/43/77 are full frame and tiny and bright and . . . autofocus.

Edited February 25, 2015 by MJP

WhizBang · March 9, 2015

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.

You are dismissing MFT without ever having tried it. If you want small, then there is the Panasonic GM series, which is 'almost' pocketable, especially if paired with a pancake like the 14mm.

If you want a good well laid out camera, then the Olympus OM series, or Panasonic GH series, and if you want good video it is the GH4.

The MFT lenses are all smaller and lighter than their APS or FF counterparts.

But if big and heavy is your thing, then both Canon and Nikon can accomodate.

I own MFT and FF Nikons as well as a Sony A850. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but when I head out for a day to shoot or travel, it is the MFT kit that goes with me.

Oh, I also have a Nikon 1 AW1 for those beach, river, waterfall shots.

hanno · March 9, 2015

Been playing around with the Tamron and it is not bad for a 1,000-Dollar lens.

NeverSure · March 10, 2015

Just picked up a Sony G FE 70-200 f/4 with OSS.

Decided on my travel kit.

Samyang 14/2.8 (in K-mount adapted to E-mount)

Sony Zeiss FE 35/1.4 (coming soon and depending on reviews)

Revuenon 55mm f/1.2 (in K-mount adapted to E-mount

Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8

Sony G FE 70-200 f/4

Pentax D-FA 100/2.8 Macro WR adapted to E-mount

This is all the glass I'll ever use so now need to sell off the rest of the gear, although may keep hold of the Pentax FA Limited's (31/43/77) for now and sell when Pentax comes out with the full frame later on in the year.

Desperately need to lighten the load.

I ask myself what I actually carry in my camera bag almost every day in my car, and grab when I go walking around. That is my most important equipment.

I carry one body where with slide and print film I use to carry two Nikon F1's. I carry a wide angle, a mid range zoom, and an 80-200. I carry a macro lens and a number of filters the polarizing being used most often.

If I don't need it on a routine basis then I don't need it. Everything else is bonus.

manarak · March 10, 2015

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.

You are dismissing MFT without ever having tried it. If you want small, then there is the Panasonic GM series, which is 'almost' pocketable, especially if paired with a pancake like the 14mm.

If you want a good well laid out camera, then the Olympus OM series, or Panasonic GH series, and if you want good video it is the GH4.

The MFT lenses are all smaller and lighter than their APS or FF counterparts.

But if big and heavy is your thing, then both Canon and Nikon can accomodate.

I own MFT and FF Nikons as well as a Sony A850. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but when I head out for a day to shoot or travel, it is the MFT kit that goes with me.

Oh, I also have a Nikon 1 AW1 for those beach, river, waterfall shots.

I'm not dismissing MFT, I'm dismissing its marketing message that it fits into a pocket.

But to be useful in most everyday situations, MFT needs a lens that won't ever fit in the pocket.

MFT is smaller and lighter, yes, but if it doesn't fit into a pocket, the advantage over a small DSLR is marginal. You would still need a bag to carry it around.

I got a Canon 550D with an ultrazoom as an all-round solution, it is in a small bag.

The main appeal I see in a small camera is to not need a bag - MFT does not fit that bill, contrary to what their marketing suggests, that's what I went up against.

In the lean and mean department, I got myself a Sony RX100 M3. Fits in the pocket and image quality (in good shooting conditions) is on par with my 550D equipped with a good consumer lens. And the small Sony makes awesome videos. Very sharp full HD @ 60p, I was impressed.

I'm looking to replace the 550D with something better - the Nikon D750 looks very very good for me, seems to be an awesome camera.

FracturedRabbit · March 11, 2015

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.

You are dismissing MFT without ever having tried it. If you want small, then there is the Panasonic GM series, which is 'almost' pocketable, especially if paired with a pancake like the 14mm.

If you want a good well laid out camera, then the Olympus OM series, or Panasonic GH series, and if you want good video it is the GH4.

The MFT lenses are all smaller and lighter than their APS or FF counterparts.

But if big and heavy is your thing, then both Canon and Nikon can accomodate.

I own MFT and FF Nikons as well as a Sony A850. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but when I head out for a day to shoot or travel, it is the MFT kit that goes with me.

Oh, I also have a Nikon 1 AW1 for those beach, river, waterfall shots.

I'm not dismissing MFT, I'm dismissing its marketing message that it fits into a pocket.

But to be useful in most everyday situations, MFT needs a lens that won't ever fit in the pocket.

MFT is smaller and lighter, yes, but if it doesn't fit into a pocket, the advantage over a small DSLR is marginal. You would still need a bag to carry it around.

I got a Canon 550D with an ultrazoom as an all-round solution, it is in a small bag.

The main appeal I see in a small camera is to not need a bag - MFT does not fit that bill, contrary to what their marketing suggests, that's what I went up against.

In the lean and mean department, I got myself a Sony RX100 M3. Fits in the pocket and image quality (in good shooting conditions) is on par with my 550D equipped with a good consumer lens. And the small Sony makes awesome videos. Very sharp full HD @ 60p, I was impressed.

I'm looking to replace the 550D with something better - the Nikon D750 looks very very good for me, seems to be an awesome camera.

Strange; I have been shooting MFT since 2009 and not once do I recall seeing a marketing message that suggested I could fit one in my pocket. Personally I would not put any camera of any size in my pocket; living in Thailand I only wear jeans or shorts; neither of which facilitate camera storage (especially if it has to battle for space with my wallet, phone and car keys).

The advantage of a small camera is that is small, light and unobtrusive and it is not a chore to carry everywhere with you. Sticking it a little bag over your shoulder does not dilute the benefits.

Goshawk · April 5, 2015

been umming & ahhing over this one for months for the D7100 . . . now DigitalRev are doing a 'special' on it for the next 2 days...

anyways . . . at £489, i couldn't resist it anymore! so the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art, will be in my system sometime next week. (i'll call it an easter treat )

sunshine51 · April 5, 2015

GH...apparently that lens is a very good choice...good luck with it.

Happy Easter.

Edited April 5, 2015 by sunshine51

Goshawk · April 5, 2015

^ thanks SS . . . yeah, been following the hoo-har on it since it was launched & knew that i'd probably end up getting it one day. General consensus across the web is that it rocks, so I'll see if it lives up to all that hype . .

i like Corey over at FaymusMedia, and it was his review (as gushing as everyone else's on YT about this lens ) that finally convinced me when i watched it a couple of months ago . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erDBDsW3EG8

sunshine51 · April 6, 2015

GH...You do know that Nik has the D7200 out now don't you?

I have no idea about local availability but it's in SGP, HKG

& KL.....it's only money...hah!

Goshawk · April 7, 2015

GH...You do know that Nik has the D7200 out now don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaZAi-GHwgM

he took the words right out of my mouth

Goshawk · April 18, 2015

I'll see if it lives up to all that hype . .

omg . . . believe that hype, so far this is v good!

sunshine51 · April 19, 2015

If I was using only DX & traveling I'd have only 3 lenses if my kit was Nikon.

1. 16-85 @ f4...or the 3.5-5.6 for the extra speed at the wide end.

2. 70-300 @ f4.5-5.6 VR because it's razor sharp and costs a fraction of the 70-200 @2.8 VR2.

3. 35m @ f1.4 AFS G because nothing beats a lens with a focal length around 50mm & this equates

to 52.5mm in DX format. Fast & sharp & great for low light.

But i don't just shoot DX I shoot FF too...and that's where big money for heaps of lenses

is needed...or one can really get by on 3...but that's another post for another time.

Goshawk · May 15, 2015

New Nikon shooters . . . . pay heed.

sunshine51 · May 16, 2015

^^^GH...This guy does make a good presentation!

The internet gets very confusing when looking for a new lens

or even a new body or...the extras. What one person has &

raves about may suck for someone else. And after the money

has been spent they can be stuck with something they cannot

easily get rid of.

There's heaps of reviews out there...take any lens or body or

combo of lens & body and read around 6 or 10 reviews or more.

It's surprising that some are the same with the words rearranged

while others are completely different POV's.

The reviews on Niks 24-120 @ 3.5-5.6 VR are a great example; one

site says it sucks with digital photography and is only good for those

still shooting film since the lens came out back in the film days.

Another site says it sucks on APS-C bodies but is great on FF

equivalent bodies and film bodies.

Another site says it generally sucks on any camera body since

someone should get the new f4 version if they want that focal length.

Other sites are a mixture of good & bad reviews while in reality...

the lens is really good (not the best mind you) for film, APS-C &

FF equivalent. On APS-C bodies you get a so-so wide end of 36mm

but at the long end you get 180mm plus VR...not too bad for a lens

you can pick up for around $300USD today...or less.

But that's just my POV...others may say it sucks...so be it...big deal.

Try before you buy.

Edited May 16, 2015 by sunshine51

Sign In

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

Which lenses should be in a camera system?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members