If I could only own/use one lens, that would probably mean that I also could only own/use one camera, Therefore the lens would be either an f:3.5 Zeiss or Schneider lens mounted on a Rolleiflex TLR camera. For B&W, that is probably all I should be using anyhow. For a system, I would definitely say a Hasselblad 500cm with 50mm, 80mm, 150mm lenses. Can I bring my tripod along? ........Regards!Over this time I got to ponder about my stuff. Let's say you are only to own / use one camera system, or that you are suddenly moving country and you could only take 1 camera system with you. How many lenses would you take with you that you use REALLY use?
Through my pondering. I find that over time I have bought some stuff and I have sold some of it. For myself it's really just 3 or 4 lenses max. And the interesting thing is 3 or 4 lenses for each diff format really. If it was medium format maybe 3 classical primes. If it was a whizzy 35mm system maybe 3 zooms and 1 prime kinda thing.
A note that I don't do sports or wildlife but ... yeah but maybe I relate to the majority but there are definitely exceptions to the rule.
Cheers....
If I could only own/use one lens, that would probably mean that I also could only own/use one camera, Therefore the lens would be either an f:3.5 Zeiss or Schneider lens mounted on a Rolleiflex TLR camera. For B&W, that is probably all I should be using anyhow. For a system, I would definitely say a Hasselblad 500cm with 50mm, 80mm, 150mm lenses. Can I bring my tripod along? ........Regards!
I am forming the opinion that the number of lenses might correlate inversely to one's expertise level. As I get better with photography I find that I use fewer lenses. Anyone else agree?
.....
Carrying a whole pile of lenses -- not to mention changing them out in the wild -- is enough trouble to somewhat discourage photography.
...
Yes, but I think it's less a matter of experience, and more a matter of findings one's "style & look". Once you have that look, that drives your choice of lens, so naturally you use less lenses.
Yes, makes sense. Of course, experience leads you to your own personal style. At least, that's what I'm praying for...
Yes! And more to the point...Where are the pinhole folks to say, “Lenses? We don’t need no stinkin’ lenses!”?
Define "need".
It depends on what I am photographing:
- Most of my photography is done with the normal lens.
- In Europe in general a normal and wide angle lens [24mm to 30mm equivalents in 35mm] are sufficient.
- In the Greek isles I use the MF SWF and 50mm [20mm to 24mm equivalents in 35mm] almost exclusively.
- For wild life I use MF 500mm and 1,000mm [312mm and 625mm equivalents in 35mm] and wish I have longer lenses.
I dislike zooms.so, I would take three lenses: normal, wide and longish; in case f 35mm: 50,35,85; in case of 6x6:80,50,150!
To quote the Master, Jay Maisel: "The more you carry, the less you shoot." Despite owning a complement of Nikkors, ranging from 15mm to 600mm, I rely, to an overwhelming degree, on just four lenses: 28mm F2, 50mm F1.2, 85mm F1.4, and a 180mm F2.8. These I consider necessary, the rest are just "nice to have." Similarly, for my Hasselblads, only the 50mm, 100mm, and 180mm are "essential"; the rest? Just convenient at times.
I am forming the opinion that the number of lenses might correlate inversely to one's expertise level. As I get better with photography I find that I use fewer lenses. Anyone else agree?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?