How many lenses do you really need?

[LeftCoastKid]

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.

 

[Arklatexian]

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!

 

[rayonline_nz]

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 said 1 camera system (not lens) ;-)

 

[halfaman]

I really use two lenses, the standard prime of the system and a wide angle (normally 24-28 mm equivalent for exterior and 35 mm equivalent for interiors). I use teles for very special things that are not part of my normal shooting.

 

[Bikerider]

For my multitude of cameras I have more than enough lenses. The Minolta ones get used less than the others but are worth keeping as they are all manual focus primes apart from a treasured 24/35 zoom. I enjoy going back to basics occasionally. (Like today)

For my Nikon AF and Digital (2 x Full frame) I have one that I use more than perhaps any others which is a 28/105AFD which, contrary to what a lot of people say it is a damn good lens. My 20/35 and 37/70, both AFD, are my lenses of choice for very high quality work and being constant aperture they are easy to work with. I recently bought a 90mm Tamron macro lens which is perhaps the sharpest of the bunch and is being used more and more. The one that gets left out in the cold is a 70/300AFD, which is possibly the lightest of the Nikon lenses but the least used. Perhaps 1 in 10 exposures are with this. If push came to a mighty shove, the one I would keep is the 28/105.

 

[lensman_nh]

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?

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.

I use my 24-105 L EF and my 17-40 L EF about equally. With my FD cameras, I use a 20mm and 85MM the most.

The other lenses come out when I experiment. Over time my favorite lens might very well change as my style changes.

 

[DWThomas]

The answer is 'None' -- go pinhole!

Actually I like at least one -- depending on the camera, that may be my only choice -- the 80mm on my TLR for example, or with my folders. For travel and casual use, a zoom such as my good ol' Canon FD 35-105 is cool (or the 35-70 for more compactness, less weight). My latest digi-thing has an 18-150 which is a wide range but occasionally not as fast as I might wish. For specific projects I may pick two or three primes based on my intent.

My general guide:
Carrying a whole pile of lenses -- not to mention changing them out in the wild -- is enough trouble to somewhat discourage photography.
No matter what lens you buy or have with you, there will always be a moment when you wish you had a different one -- longer, wider, whatever.

So I say "learn to adapt!"

My 1.3 (after tax) cents ...

 

[BradS]

.....
Carrying a whole pile of lenses -- not to mention changing them out in the wild -- is enough trouble to somewhat discourage photography.
...

+1

 

[Dr. no]

I've come to agree with the "less is more". I rarely put anything but a normal lens on any camera (50, 90 or 135mm) except for special circumstances (wildlife, sports, theater). I you can cause your camera to see what you see, you are halfway home...

 

[Dusty Negative]

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...

 

[jtk]

My camera see nothing. The print is the only thing I see. If I'm not happy with the print I didn't see as well as I might have.

 

[MattKing]

My favourite "normal" lens is something like a 35mm lens (for 135 full frame cameras).
My favourite "kit" for 135 is my 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 85mm f/2 trio for my Olympus OM bodies, but they and the body are sufficiently small to be convenient, so I can feel comfortable "needing" them.
As the cameras and lenses get bigger, the number of lenses I need seems to go down - I can be quite happy with just a 65mm or even 50mm on my RB67.

 

[lensman_nh]

Yes, makes sense. Of course, experience leads you to your own personal style. At least, that's what I'm praying for...

What comes first, the chicken or the egg ?

I think some styles of photography tend to have self-limiting lens options. Street tends to wide, insects tends towards 100mm macro lenses (unless you have very deep pockets for 200mm macro lenses)

Some people find their style first, then gain experience. For others, like myself, it's the other way round. And this is what makes this hobby so fascinating. I could never do this as a job. Every time I've turned what I love into a job, the fun has gone out if it. I use film as a reaction to spending all day in front of a monitor at work.

If I had to stare through a viewfinder and garner clients so I could earn money as a photographer I would hate it. I would end up pleasing clients instead of myself. Kudos to those that can do that, and find time to explore the medium for themselves, but that isn't me.

As it stands, I can do whatever the heck I want photographically, and damn the consequences because I only have to please my hardest critic, myself.

Maybe that's a call to pick up the least used lenses on my shelf and use them more in 2020...

 

[jtk]

Today I shot a split bamboo tea ceremony whisk. I envisioned the shot yesterday..used a 200mm Samsung with extension tube and tripod as planned. Lit today with late morning direct sun on white paper...a half hour ago. The photograph was virtually finished before I went to bed last night... The pigment arrived a few minutes ago, just as I was cleaning up after the shot.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Where are the pinhole folks to say, “Lenses? We don’t need no stinkin’ lenses!”?

Yes! And more to the point...
“Need” has nothing to do with it.

 

[darkosaric]

I need only 50mm and 105mm. When I go on a trip, usually those 2 lenses with 2 cameras are going with me. Only 50mm is also acceptable.
OK, I have many different 50's (more than 10) and 105's (3)...but beside that I do not have much: zoom 24-50, 28-80, 90mm elmar, 135mm hektor, 180mm and 200mm. It is so easy to be Nikon collector, they are chap and good.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Define "need".

 

[benjiboy]

If push came to shove I could manage with just my 50mm f1.2 lens but if could have three lenses I would have my 28,50 and 100 mm lenses.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Define "need".

If it came to that question. Pick one camera system only. Then what is that 75% of your images taken with or 75% of the time you spent with your camera taken by? This is your own personal enjoyment photography, not work related or club groups related unless it is what you enjoy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

I use fixed lenses for MF and Zoom lenses for 35mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Well that just proves that Jay Maisel is just not as good a photographer as I am.

 

[mrosenlof]

The obvious answer to "need" is one. For me, the one is about 1.5x the ..normal.. focal length for the film format. maybe 2x at the longest. I have done that one lens on a couple of long overseas trips. it works, but you miss a few, but you adapt, and if you are seeing well, you will get good photos. this is personal stuff only of course. for pro work a didn't have the right lens excuse is just a job not done.

 

[Ariston]

Two.

No, wait... ten.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I recently started shooting with a Leica CL and find the 40mm f2 and the 90mm f4 combo to work well for me. Besides being a photographer, I am also a camera collector so I always enjoy picking up a unique lens when I see one I've never used. As far as my paid work, most is done with a nikon d4, a 24-120 F4 or a fast prime. The most used is the 35-58-105.

 

[James Bleifus]

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?

I was photographing in a cave shrine recently and discovered that both bulb and time on my Schneider 180 didn’t work, so I switched to my Schneider 120 6.8. Before the day was over I’d decided to bite the bullet and do what I’ve wanted to do for some time - just shoot with one camera and one lens. Best call I could have made.

(I am looking to get a backup 120 when the chance arises so that I can keep shooting while one is being repaired, and I’m selling off my other lenses now)

Cheers, James