60, 80 or 150?

[maarten m]

i have these lenses for the moment,
all in good working condition:

C 60f3.5 T*
C 80f2.8 T*
C 150f4 T*

if i would let go of one lens, which should it be?

thanks for your thoughts!
maarten.

 

[elekm]

I'm not sure this is a question that anyone can answer, because we have no way of knowing how you shoot, which lens you use the most or which lens gives you the best photos.

 

[Dan Henderson]

I have those 3 lenses and I use the 80 the least. But that's just me.

 

[guitstik]

What type of photography do you do most often? Portrait the 80 will work best followed by the 60. If you do landscape then the 150 would be the best. So depending on the type of photography you do will determine the lenses you will want to keep.

 

[maarten m]

thanks for your replies so far.
i only got the 60mm last week to start a project for indoor "portraits" of artists (painters, sculpturers, designers) in their habitat.
i found no use for the 150 but was afraid the 60 would give me too much distortions if i portrait them too close.

why do you find the 150 most suitable for landscapes? and the 60 for portraits?
i was convinced it would have been the opposite:
slight telephoto for portraits; slight wide-angle for landscapes.

about image quality: which of the three gets best (theoretical) results?

maarten.

 

[Q.G.]

The best technical results would come from the 80 mm.
But don't decide on such a metric. It should be about what you want to do, and what lens, what focal length will help you do that.
Only you can decide.

 

[ChrisJarisch]

I've found the best lens for portraits is my 150... And I would think the 60 wouldnt be all that well suited to portraiture, a opposed to landscapes. But... to each his own, I guess. I'd toss the 80, myself... fwiw...

 

[lns]

I somehow acquired all three lenses myself. I loved the 60mm so much that I considered selling the 80mm. But to make sure, I shot a few rolls with the 80mm, and realized all over again how great the 80mm is. The resale value of my 80mm is pretty low. So I decided to keep them all.

I don't regret it. I usually take the 150mm and one of the shorter lenses with me on every shoot. I use the 60mm and the 80mm about equally as normal lenses. Like you, I do use the 60mm for environmental portraits. But the 150mm is my primary portrait lens, because I find it very flattering (sometimes with tubes) for head and shoulder portraits. I find it useful for landscapes too, because of it's narrower field of view. With tubes, it's also my substitute for a macro lens.

It's interesting to see how others use the focal lengths differently. I think if I were you I'd use them for a while and see what works best for you.

-Laura

 

[MattKing]

If you sell one, that will end up being the one you want to use most for the foreseeable future .

Do you do much close focus work? If so, I would check the respective close-focus capabilities of each before deciding.

Are the filter sizes the same for all three? That would influence my decision.

For me, I think a 60mm and 150mm pair makes for a versatile two lens kit.

 

[guitstik]

I use an 80 on bothe the 67 and 645 cameras that I own for just about everything that I shoot. I have a tendency to do things contrary to what others do so to that end I will use a 150 or so lens (depending on the camer) to shoot landscapes. You have to determine what lenses work best for the type of photography that you do.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It depends on what you use. For me the 60mm is too close to the 80mm, therefore I bought the 50mm.

I have the 38mm SWC, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, and 250mm. I do not take portraits so the 150mm is the least used lens.

Therefore I recommend that you look at my first sentence in this post.

Steve

 

[fotch]

I would keep all three. You need to shoot all 3 for awhile so you can decide for your self what you should do.

 

[bdial]

I recently bought a 60, and so far my results with it are amazing. Prior to that, the 150 has been the one on the camera most often.
If I were making that choice, today, I'd probably ditch the 80. Too much depends on how you like to work though.
If you don't have a pressing need to get rid of one, I'm with Fotch, keep all three for now.

 

[2F/2F]

That is a big if. Do you have to let go of one, or do you not?

 

[maarten m]

hey guys,

i read a lot of interesting thought here.

actually, i have to let go of one (or two?) if i go through with the idea of getting myself a 35mm RF as a present
getting rid of my contax and canon 35mm doesn't bother me, since that's replaced by digital 35mm.
i don't like to have stuff laying arround unused, if i can replace it by less stuff that does get used.

i think i'll just have to find out for myself what i use least, or get least results out.

regards,
maarten.

 

[perkeleellinen]

What I would do is to give one of the lenses to a friend to look after for a month or two and see how that feels. Then when you get it back, give them the next lens and so on. Which one was the least painful to loose? Which one where you most glad to get back?

 

[eddym]

Years ago I had that same kit with a 500ELM. I found it to be an excellent spacing of focal lengths. I would not part with any of them unless I had to, but if you feel that the 60 is not wide enough, or the 150 is not long enough, then that would answer your question. Otherwise, find another way to finance your RF.

 

[2F/2F]

Personally, I would sell the 80 last and the 150 first. However, this is just me. The normal lens is the most important lens for me. I also like a moderate wide like the 60mm quite a lot. When I use a telephoto on square format, I generally like to use ones longer than 150mm (e.g. 180 and 250), so I would probably sell the 150 first, planning on getting a 250 some time in the future.

 

[Q.G.]

I find it an impossible question.

I often carry just a two lens set, consisting of the 60 mm + the 150 mm.
If you have to be restricted to only two lenses, that is not a bad set at all.

The 80 mm itself is a great lens too: great quality, and very versatile. It would make a perfect one lens 'set'. Neither too short nor too long (which is why the 60 needs the 150 and the 150 needs the 60 in that two lens set - neither lens would make a great one lens 'set').

60 mm and 80 mm are close, but different enough to keep both in a three lens set.

But in the end, it all depends on what you like, want or need. What works for someone else may not work for you.
That sort of thing.

 

[clayne]

Here's my motto: The longer the focal length, the more boring the photographs.

 

[Q.G.]

My motto could be: the shorter the focal length, the more boring the photograph.
I like to use the near standard stuff (60 80 100 110 120) for a lot of things (you do need longer and shorter lenses sometimes). So there must be some optimal range, inbetween the two mottos.

 

[clayne]

My motto could be: the shorter the focal length, the more boring the photograph.
I like to use the near standard stuff (60 80 100 110 120) for a lot of things (you do need longer and shorter lenses sometimes). So there must be some optimal range, inbetween the two mottos.

Your motto could be.

I commit to my motto, however.

Realistically, I don't think there's any "optimal" FL, however the FL is most definitely attached to how much space the photographer shares with the subject - which is further picked up on by the viewer of the images produced from it.

In terms of 135, a 50mm can convey separation, whereas a 20-35mm can convey involvement or immersion because you had to be close to pull off a good shot.

Sometimes separation is pertinent - however most of the time immersion is much more powerful. Mainly because it takes involvement and commitment.

Caveat emptor: I'm not a rocks and trees photographer.

 

[2F/2F]

Sometimes separation is pertinent - however most of the time immersion is much more powerful. Mainly because it takes involvement and commitment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

 

[Q.G.]

Your motto could be.

I commit to my motto, however.

My life, my world, isn't black and white, contains many nuances.

Realistically, I don't think there's any "optimal" FL, however the FL is most definitely attached to how much space the photographer shares with the subject - which is further picked up on by the viewer of the images produced from it.

In terms of 135, a 50mm can convey separation, whereas a 20-35mm can convey involvement or immersion because you had to be close to pull off a good shot.

Sometimes separation is pertinent - however most of the time immersion is much more powerful. Mainly because it takes involvement and commitment.

I agree. But 20 mm is far too short, far too unreal for that sort of stuff. I doesn't convey, i think, involvement or immersion, but a "look at my neat lens and the trickery it can do, and so yes, i'm a photographer here to take photos, not giving a hoot for what they are doing, but do want you to notice i'm not afraid to get in other people's faces" kind of thingy.

35 mm would do nicely though.

Longer lenses too, because people stand back from what they are doing too. The photographer should join them and do likewise.

 

[clayne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

And yet have you posted a single photograph anywhere to see, Lebowski?