Your Realistic 3-5 Lens Collection

MatthewK wrote in post #19482102
“Date the body, marry the lens”.

I've seen the image quality and quality of life improvements between every lens/body generation within a dozen years.

So if you have a Mark 1 in year 1 then skip Mark 2 in year 5 for a Mark 3 in year 10.

Given enough time it is easy to tell which brand or generation a camera lens/body is.

Like the RF L (prime) lenses paired with R3 or R5 body are awesome! It does tell you that the photo was done on a Canon full frame released during COVID.

Everyone has their reasons for justifying their upgrades and/or purchase decisions. For myself, lens choices are driven by focal length and aperture needs (and weight, in the case of birding), and they make the systems. Camera bodies are secondary to the lenses, necessary only because I need them to use said lenses. It’s not too often that a camera has markedly improved my picture quality, in fact the only major change I’ve experienced in that regard was when I jumped from Canon to Nikon (and their Sony-made sensors).

Honestly, can’t remember when IQ/test chart results were a consideration for me, as I feel like IQ has been amazing even since I started photography (with the exception of well known dogs… pssst Canon EF 50 f/1.2L you’re beautiful, but flawed ) The ability to more effectively land the shots I want, now that’s where the biggest changes have been realized, especially with the jump from DSLR to ML.

I'm a bit of a lens collector so limiting myself to 3 lenses would be impossible but 5 could be manageable.

RF 100mm f2.8 Macro L
RF 24-70mm f2.8L
RF 15-35mm f2.8L
RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L
RF 50mm f1.2L though this could easily be 3 or 4 different fast primes.

strobe monkey wrote in post #19481801
Once I have tried prime lenses, even non L ones, I find it difficult to go back to zoomers...

It has been the opposite for me. I used to shoot primarily primes, and my main lens was a Canon 400mm f2.8

But when I got the Sigma 300-800mm zoom, I loved the compositional versatility so much that I hardly ever used the 400 f2.8 anymore. Eventually sold it due to never even bothering to pick it up for months at a time.

I also shot a lot with the Canon 400 f5.6 prime, but when I got the 100-400v2, I literally could not find a single advantage to the prime, and so I sold that off, as well.

The only reason I still use primes at all is because no one seems to make a true dedicated macro lens in a zoom configuration. But if someone made a 35-100mm 1:1 macro zoom in EF mount, then I would grab it in a heartbeat and finally not be stuck with fixed focal lengths for macro shooting.

By the way, my primary lens is now a Sigma 60-600mm. The 10x zoom range is SO MUCH more useful than any zooms in the 4x to 5x range. It surprised me how much I shoot at the extreme ends of the range. 60mm to 90mm gets a lot of use, and 500mm to 600mm gets a lot of use. And of course so does everything in between.

Can't even imagine how frustrating it would be to go back to primes.

I think it depends on your subject and what aperture you want to use also, I like to use wide open for portraits, and low light. You seem be using your lenses a lot for birding, judging by the zoom range. If I did the same, then my choices will be different.

strobe monkey wrote in post #19483020
I think it depends on your subject and what aperture you want to use also, I like to use wide open for portraits, and low light. You seem be using your lenses a lot for birding, judging by the zoom range. If I did the same, then my choices will be different.

Birds, large mammals like deer and elk, small mammals like hares and squirrels, and herps like toads, snakes, and lizards. Hence, my lens collection requires a broad range of focal lengths and close-up capabilities.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19482988
It has been the opposite for me. I used to shoot primarily primes, and my main lens was a Canon 400mm f2.8

But when I got the Sigma 300-800mm zoom, I loved the compositional versatility so much that I hardly ever used the 400 f2.8 anymore. Eventually sold it due to never even bothering to pick it up for months at a time.

I understand that completely, as you’re a long lens guy.

I’ve had wide- and mid-range zooms that I easily gave up for more satisfying primes, but I can’t seem to get away from long focal length zooms. I tried a 135 (I’ll keep the Zeiss), 200, and 300, but I can’t seem to “see” with them. I’d much rather have a zoom telephoto than long primes.

Realistic 3-5 lens kit:
I was smart once and bought a 16-35 2.8, 50 1.2, and 70-200 2.8. That’s all I needed.

Then I didn’t find the 16-35 sharp and exciting, although I used it more often than I care to admit. I’m a street guy these days, and old, so I try to pick different from my collection.

The heaviest: 15, 25, 50 makro, 70-200
The usual: 21, 28, 50 1.4, 100f2 makro
The minimum: 25f2, 50 1.4, 100f2 makro

Everyday is the Q

I thought this thread was about which 3-5 lenses to kit for a day.

mcluckie wrote in post #19489502
I thought this thread was about which 3-5 lenses to kit for a day.

No worries, I deleted it no need to get nervous.

.

mcluckie wrote in post #19489502
I thought this thread was about which 3-5 lenses to kit for a day.

.

robamy wrote in post #19489526
.
No worries, I deleted it no need to get nervous.

.
Awwwww .... darn. . I liked your lens list, Rob. . There's no need to strictly stick to a given number of lenses. . I like hearing about your collection, and it is certainly a realistic collection, because you actually have the lenses in your list.

If you don't mind re-writing your post, I would love to see it back up here. . It is interesting to see what lens choices others make, especially when they shoot much of the same subject matter that I shoot.


.

I’ve been slowly moving to RF lenses.

So I’d go with 14-35 F4 IS
EF 50 1.2 ( not worth it to get the RF)
RF 70-200 2.8

I’d keep my 135 and 100-400

robamy wrote in post #19489526
No worries, I deleted it no need to get nervous.

No one I know was nervous, and why should they. The list was fine, but the topic at hand was which of that might go out together. No need to delete anything, just add.

.

mcluckie wrote in post #19489502
.
I thought this thread was about which 3-5 lenses to kit for a day.
.

.
I never saw anything in the OP about it being for a day. . It is specifically about a "collection", which I don't necessarily think has anything to do with what you take out for a specific outing. . But there's no real reason we have to limit ourselves to list only what the OP asked for. . "Lens collectionn" means different things to different people. . So if someone wants to list more, or fewer, than a 3 to 5 lens collection, then have at it!
.

mrclark321 wrote in post #939065
.
If you had to choose between 3 and 5 lenses for your collection what would they be?

Dan
.

.

Fine, but it was about 3-5 lens collections. I think many of us have a lot more, so I added, at least in my own thought process, a 3-5 lens collection that might go in a bag together as the COLLECTION the OP wanted. Yeah no one said it was in a bag for a day either, so let’s instead make it a list of every lens you own. What’s closer to the OPs post, or do we just ignore all intended purposes of all threads?

This really didn’t need to be continued.