What focal length could you not live without?

Thecageyone

With so many lenses criss-crossing focal lengths you're often left with overlaps, which can get annoying. Like if you only have a 24-105mm, and a 70-200, at what point do you switch over? Answer is usually, whichever is sharpest at the desired focal range for the shot you're after. But ... what if ..

A new law was slapped into place, [let's just imagine, however silly it seems] declaring camera lens focal lengths cannot cross over, but can start and finish on same lengths. Manufacturers would have to abide by this across the board and all lenses would have to be made to fit within very strict guide lines.

Disaster right? They'd come up with multiple tight offerings to squeeze as many in as possible.

You can only ever afford to have 3 lenses at at any one time, and the offerings will be ridiculous, no more 18 - 200, or even 50-200 as they'll tighten them up. Say the maximum range between focal lengths is set to 30mm for anything below 200 and 100mm thereafter.

What can you live without?

daycent

I think I know what you are on about.... I suppose I'll go with an existing lens (Canon) 16-35mm. Loving the really wide shots on full frame at the moment.

K_user

What a horrible thought!

But I do see the flip side, the quality of the glass might improve alot.

As for choices, give me a 50mm prime and maybe something in and around 200mm and I'd be happy. I don't ask for much.

challengemaster

I've only had 3 lenses for the past...atleast 2 years now, and haven't found the need for more.

50mm f/1.8
24-70 f/2.8 L
70-200 f/2.8 L

If I was going to get another, it'd be a 300mm tbh.... so there's feck all crossover apart from the 50mm prime...

Do I win? :pac:

Borderfox

24-70L
70-200L

Perfect combo

Thecageyone

One problem challengemaster, you couldn't have a 70-200 as anything below 200mm will have been restricted to no more than a 30mm range. Makes it a bit tougher

I probably didn't explain this hypothetical situation the best, but you have the idea. No crossing over of focal lengths, you can only have 3, and to make it tough no more than 30mm between focal lengths below 200mm and 100mm between thereafter [some might decide they're going all out for zooms and ditching wide angles]

It's as much about what you think you'd need to hang onto, as it is about what you could do without.

I'd have to lose my 17-50 as that's a 33mm difference, but no doubt something like a 20-50mm would turn up for savage money. I'd go with that, a 70-100mm and maybe a 200 - 300mm [they will of course exist in this imaginary situation ]

From that I see I can live without wide angle, at least ultra wide angle. And the space left between 50 - 70mm is easily dealt with by just moving my ass! I'd miss the space between 100 - 200 most I reckon.

.Longshanks.

I've 4 lens;
- 10-20mm
- 30mm f1.4
- 50mm f1.8
- 85mm f1.8

Of those, the 30mm & 85mm would the ones I couldn't live without. The other two are rarely used - in fact my cousin has my 50mm on loan since oct

Thecageyone

That's the kind of thing I was interested to see, different shooters like very different ranges. You obviously never bother with distance shooting? Wildlife/sport etc .. It can say a lot about your style. You're more street i would say yeah?

I suppose I like a bit of this and a bit of that, keep asking myself what particular area I'd like to get more involved in, but can never fully answer. I like to have at least one mid-long zoom at all times in case I spot something in the distance, but find I rarely do take it out the bag. Night of the photowalk being a good example, I only used the one 17-50 lens all night, though I had a 55-200vr in the bag too. Went for more wide shots on the night.

I love portraiture, so I'd need to have a nice prime. Maybe an 85mm instead of the 70-100 then

challengemaster

Thecageyone wrote: »

I love portraiture, so I'd need to have a nice prime. Maybe an 85mm instead of the 70-100 then

You'd be surprised how good a lens like the 70-200L is for portraits...

cnocbui

All my lenses are primes, bar one, so I am almost operating under the proposed restrictions already.

The two focal lengths I could least do without are 90 and 180mm.

.Longshanks.

Thecageyone wrote: »

That's the kind of thing I was interested to see, different shooters like very different ranges. You obviously never bother with distance shooting? Wildlife/sport etc .. It can say a lot about your style. You're more street i would say yeah?

I suppose I like a bit of this and a bit of that, keep asking myself what particular area I'd like to get more involved in, but can never fully answer. I like to have at least one mid-long zoom at all times in case I spot something in the distance, but find I rarely do take it out the bag. Night of the photowalk being a good example, I only used the one 17-50 lens all night, though I had a 55-200vr in the bag too. Went for more wide shots on the night.

I love portraiture, so I'd need to have a nice prime. Maybe an 85mm instead of the 70-100 then

I bought a 55-250mm same time as bought my 1st DSLR. Sold the lens after a year cos only used it to pics of moon!
Given enough spare cash I'd buy a 70-200 f2.8 - only because people rave about it! Realistically I've no want / need for anything else (yet!)

stcstc

my 2 most used lens are

sigma 8mm fisheye
70-200 f 4

newbridgemom

without a doubt, my 50mm 1.2 on a full-frame 5D. I could use this lens all day at a wedding and not need to change. But I recently got a 100mm 2.8 macro that is a good portrait and macro lens.
the 50mm 1.2 makes me want to shoot all the time. i can use it on my 40D if i need more length.

daycent

newbridgemom wrote: »

without a doubt, my 50mm 1.2 on a full-frame 5D. I could use this lens all day at a wedding and not need to change. But I recently got a 100mm 2.8 macro that is a good portrait and macro lens.
the 50mm 1.2 makes me want to shoot all the time. i can use it on my 40D if i need more length.

mmmmm.... 50mm 1.2.....jealous!:D

newbridgemom

The best purchase i ever made (bought in the US and saved around €400). had the 1.4 and 1.8 and they cannot compare. would rather shoot on cheaper cameras and have this one expensive, beautiful lens. if i had to sell it tomorrow, i could make almost what i paid for it. can't say the same for cameras. always invest in your glass and you won't be sorry.

Thecageyone

challengemaster wrote: »

You'd be surprised how good a lens like the 70-200L is for portraits...

No good to me on a Nikon though :P

yeah, some of the higher end zooms would be brilliant for portraits. I would love a 70-200 f/2.8 vr, I'd probably use that a hell of a lot more than the current cheap 55-200 I have - because of the low light capabilities plus the much better glass. The one I have is alright, It's light, which I love, it was cheap and it's simple but has good enough IQ. Just not great in any kind of low light even with the VR. If you seen the shot of the old man by th quays I posted up recently, that was taken with the humble 55-200.

But, of course, in this imaginary situation, I could have neither. The 85mm prime would cover the range by moving about on foot. Maybe I'd lose some more weight that way!

I had to let go of my 50mm with my old 200 body to make enough to get the D90, but to be honest, since I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, the 50mm was gathering dust. Apart from it being slightly sharper at 50mm, the only advantage was the better low light abilities. Looking through the shots I had taken with it, very, very few were taken at 1.8. Most at f/8 in fact!

AnimalRights

At the Moment I'm using 3 main lengths fisheye 2.8 for wide
50 1.4 for pub shots and er 135L for sneaky pub shots.
Oh fk I ruin the thread by saying I use 24-70L for gigs...drats!

Thecageyone

Under this new law your 24-70 will be confiscated!

eas

Thecageyone wrote: »

A new law was slapped into place, [let's just imagine, however silly it seems] declaring camera lens focal lengths cannot cross over, but can start and finish on same lengths. Manufacturers would have to abide by this across the board and all lenses would have to be made to fit within very strict guide lines.

Disaster right? They'd come up with multiple tight offerings to squeeze as many in as possible.

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but isn't this what lens manufactures currently do?

I have the the following....

14-24
24-70
70-200

edit - oh - I get it...

Say the maximum range between focal lengths is set to 30mm for anything below 200 and 100mm thereafter.

in that case I'd go primes - 24mm 85mm 200mm

magicbastarder

i have two lenses on digital - 12-24mm and 35mm f1.8. i don't usually use telephoto.

Thecageyone

eas wrote: »

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but isn't this what lens manufactures currently do?

I have the the following....

14-24
24-70
70-200

edit - oh - I get it...



in that case I'd go primes - 24mm 85mm 200mm

There are lenses that fit nicely in line, but many, many lenses criss-cross. For you to have that 14-24 for example, there could be no such thing as a 17-40 as they clash, that's what I meant.

That prime range sounds good.

Kbeg3

Thecageyone wrote: »

Under this new law your 24-70 will be confiscated!

NO! My favourite lens

gsxr1

newbridgemom wrote: »

The best purchase i ever made (bought in the US and saved around €400). had the 1.4 and 1.8 and they cannot compare. would rather shoot on cheaper cameras and have this one expensive, beautiful lens. if i had to sell it tomorrow, i could make almost what i paid for it. can't say the same for cameras. always invest in your glass and you won't be sorry.

Sorry. what do you mean by "cant compare"

Is the 1.4 really worth the extra money over the 1.8.

I intend to buy a 50mm f1.8 soon. They are just so cheap. Should I just keep saving?

Hugh_C

The 50mm f/1.4 rarely leaves my D300. Occasionally slap a 24-85 zoom on for larking about up the mountains.

Thecageyone

gsxr1 wrote: »

Sorry. what do you mean by "cant compare"

Is the 1.4 really worth the extra money over the 1.8.

I intend to buy a 50mm f1.8 soon. They are just so cheap. Should I just keep saving?

There's nothing wrong with a nifty 1.8 at all. Sharp as anything, and fast enough for most situations. I was reading somewhere recently about these 1.2 lenses, some saying they're for people with more money than sense ... not my words ... but apparently they can be very soft at their widest, depending on the lens of course. Who really needs 1.2/1.4? I don't know. But they will no doubt have that little extra quality in the glass to make them sharper stopped down. Nothing you can't live without. You'll be hard pressed to notice any major difference between a 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4, if someone thinks they can show massive difference, please do.

.Longshanks.

^ on canon's, the 50mm f1.8 the lens is very flimsy. It's entirely made of plastic & the manual focus barrel is far far too fidely (too sensitive)
The 50mm f1.4 is hands down a better lens in every respect when it comes to the above*

* I don't have one - just what I've read online.

Because I've a cropped sensor, I've got a 30mm f1.4 & I spent aaaages debating with myself if it would be worth it. Now that I have it ~6 months, I wish I had of bought it earlier! It's an awesome focal length & can see now why the 50mm is held in such regard on full frames. It's been on my camera 95% since I got it

kelly1

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Because I've a cropped sensor, I've got a 30mm f1.4 & I spent aaaages debating with myself if it would be worth it. Now that I have it ~6 months, I wish I had of bought it earlier! It's an awesome focal length & can see now why the 50mm is held in such regard on full frames. It's been on my camera 95% since I got it

Kev, is that the Sigma lens? I've been debating the same thing. The 50 1.4 is great for portraits but just too long for group shots indoors.

cnocbui

I knew someone who had a photo that was taken with the 50mm f1.2 Zuiko, which was published in a National Geographic calendar. The editor contacted him personally to find out what lens he had used.

pete4130

Nikon 13mm f/5.6 because it sh!ts on everything else ever made.....and nobody else will have one that you'll ever meet.


see's a swarm of people googling "Nikon 13mm f/5.6 lens"....

.Longshanks.

kelly1 wrote: »

Kev, is that the Sigma lens? I've been debating the same thing. The 50 1.4 is great for portraits but just too long for group shots indoors.

Yeah the sigma 30mm. It's great walkabout lens due to being the closest you're gonna get to FF 50mm.
I had looked at the canon 28mm f1.8, and all the reviews said there wasn't much in it....but went for the sigma in the end. I also remember Borderfox praising the sigma so that helped decide to, but hadn't heard much about the canon around here

Thecageyone

Didn't need to google it pete, I think everyone who owns a Nikon has seen Ken Rockwell wet himself over it ... :rolleyes:

ThOnda

24-70/2.8L all the way. Magical lens. All you need. All around. If I had to chose one lens, this would be the one.
And now I am trying to learn how to use 70-200 too. Excellent one!

Thecageyone

In this scenario you can't have the 24-70 though. Or the 70-200.

I had to make it a little tough

DK32

ThOnda wrote: »

24-70/2.8L all the way. Magical lens. All you need. All around. If I had to chose one lens, this would be the one.

Snap! Couldn't live without it

Thecageyone

But you have to! it's like, this new communist rule!

Just pretend!

greener greene

So long as they don't take my 24mm away... Unless they swapped it with something like a 20-50mm

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

Didn't need to google it pete, I think everyone who owns a Nikon has seen Ken Rockwell wet himself over it ... :rolleyes:

Ken who? I don't read tabloids. I really don't see the point of this thread. The goalposts have already moved a few times. So why bother?

eas

Thecageyone wrote: »

You'll be hard pressed to notice any major difference between a 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4, if someone thinks they can show massive difference, please do.

The difference is 2/3 of a stop - when you're using the top end of your camera's capabilities it makes a very big difference in image quality.

Fajitas!

Besides, the difference in a 100 quid lens and a 350/1800 quid lens isn't just the image quality you're seeing on screen. It's how it handles CA at 100%, colour casts, colour rendition, clarity, how fast the autofocus is, and how accurate it it is, and so on, which is all present in getting 'that photograph' but chances are those won't be present in a glance at a photograph on screen.

but apparently they can be very soft at their widest, depending on the lens of course. Who really needs 1.2/1.4?

Lenses generally ARE soft at their widest aperture. It's why you stop down if you need sharpness or shoot open if you need light/depth of field. The lenses are only considered 'more money than sense' if you're not making money back out of them. For build quality alone, they're worth it though.

Anyways, I'd have to go for a 50mm, with a 35mm coming in soon after it. Either 1.2L or 1.4L only though...

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

Ken who? I don't read tabloids. I really don't see the point of this thread. The goalposts have already moved a few times. So why bother?

Point of the thread? Bit of fun. <SNIP> What goalposts, it says it all in the first post, not me changing the rules. Most people seem to get it. Stop thread ruining pete eh?

You can't look up a Nikon lens or camera without coming across Ken Rockwell. He is a plonker ... he agrees with you on the 13mm lens, you sounded just like him the way you bigged it up is all.