To Overlap or Not to Overlap, That's the ?

[MDJAK]

For some strange reason, when I consider lens purchase decisions, I don't want my focal lengths to overlap. Is this wrong?

By this, I mean I have my 17-40, which I rarely use, my 24-70f/2.8 which I love, my 100mm f/2.8 macro which is my only prime and is razor sharp, and my 70-200 f/2.8 IS. (Oh yeah, I forgot my 70-300 DO IS which I bought solely to have a lighter zoom to carry around.)

When I consider my next lens purchase, I am thinking of the 135 f/2, but I want length. The 100-400, while a great lens, is partially covered by my 70-200, and even more so when I put my 1.4 teleconverter on.

I really like N*kon's 200-400 zoom, but I sure don't like the price.

So, is it natural to have overlap, or to maximize purchases, should lenses not overlap?

[condyk]

So, is it natural to have overlap, or to maximize purchases, should lenses not overlap?

I don't think there a 'natural' answer. On paper my Sig looks unbalanced now, but I rarely used my ex Tamron and 50mm II, whereas I use my Tokina wide-ish and 100-300mm f4 all the time. As long as you have the ranges you use most covered by good lenses then who cares.

[lordjim]

I have a 70-200 F4 L and a 1.4X extender. I also have a 100-400. I first thought that because of the overlap, I would sell one of the two. However, in practice, I use the two depending on the situations.

The 70-200 is more handy and generally a bit sharper whilst the 100-400 gives me the reach for small wildlife such as birds.

In practice,the overlap has never been a problem for me. I do use both lenses.

Thet being said, if there was a 200-500 with IS on the market, it would have been my choice to maximize my investment.

[gasrocks]

In the begining when $ is tight and you are not sure what you need, get zooms and avoid overlap. Then as you find you need better (faster, closer focus, more quality,) get some primes. If you do a lot of a certain subject, you will wind up with overlap in that area (lens wise.) If you are just doing general pictures, avoiding overlap will save some $. Look at my lenses. I do not do much wide angle, but do a lot of telephoto. But, still not much overlap, really.

[xuxu1]

IMO it depends on your shooting habits, your needs and your prefrences. Not to forget your wallet. :rolleyes:
In my case ... one of the next lenses i´m going for will be the EF 70-200L.

Yes sooner or later i will have both. The f4 and the f2.8 L IS USM. Why? Well because on some shootings (not often though) i need the f2.8 for indoors. OK ... i know... what your asking. Why buy the f4 when you have the f2.8. Easy to answer. Because sometimes (more often) i don´t / can´nt drag that heavy lens with me. The f4 ist very much lighter in weight! OK i know i have the 100-400L already. But that one is a great lens for wildlife photography and it´s also pretty heavy. Almost as heavy as the 70-200L IS USM f2.8

ED

[blue_max]

Two lenses that overlap are the 17-40L and the 24-70L. One could argue that why have them both. The fact of the matter is, that the 17 is the wide angle lens and as a bonus, has the 40 end. If you could only take one lens with you, you may judge that it might be prefereable to take a wide angle lens - then the 40 end might come in useful. However, the 24-70 is a great walkabout lens and perhaps has the 24 end as a bonus.

Graham

[jfrancho]

I have over - overlap. However, I don't worry about it, since each lens has a specific purpose, or limitation that is irrelevant in the other lens. My Tamron 28-300 just about overlaps them all.