Thoughts on focal length overlap

I am a little bored so I thought I would start a thread about how people feel about focal length overlap. Personal I like a bit of overlap. When I want to shoot wife angle I use my wife angle lens. need a standard zoom? Use my 24 - 105. Telephoto? Use my 70-200. Having to change lenses because I have a 24-70 on and I need 85mm for one shot sounds like a pain. Granted if I need the absolute best iq I will use which ever Lens will give me that but for the most part it sounds pretty unnecessary. Any one else have an opinion?

Honestly, I don't consider it that much. Since my 24-105 has not left it's little pouch since I got my 24-70 I would say I pay more attention to the lens itself than the overlap.

Sometimes I only carry primes that have gaps. It is not the end of the world. Sometimes I end up cropping, other times I need to plan a little better before the shot.

I do occasionally end up in situations taking pictures of kids where it would be nice to have that 17-300mm 2.8 but until they invent a way to do that practically I am pretty happy with what I have.

I have the 24-70, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400 so I can plan to change at 70, change at 100, have overlap between 70 and 105 or have a gap between 70 and 100. But the truth is that I think carefully about what I plan to shoot and bring the short lens and the long lens that I think will work best. And if I'm going to be working in that 50-100 range where changing lenses would be an issue then the right answer is to skip all of it and grab the 50-135.

I like overlap. It means I don't have to swap lenses all the time, and I don't have to carry multiple lenses when I don't want to.

I have the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. Lots of overlap there. I also have a 35, 50, and 100. All overlapping with the zooms.

They all have different uses; when I'm out for landscapes/wide angle shots, I will take the 17-40 and sometimes the 70-200. When I'm out just generally shooting/travelling I take the 24-105. When I'm doing wildlife or people, the 70-200. When I want to be more creative or have more fun, the 35 comes out. When I want to do macro (and sometimes portraits, which is rare since I don't shoot portraits), the 100 is used. The 50 gets used the least, but its only a nifty Mk I, so that's ok.

Don't think I've ever had any [zoom] overlap with lenses.

I sold my 24-105L, bought a 17-40L, then later bought a Sigma 70-200/2.8 which I've since sold along with the 85mm - I kept the 50/1.4

I currently have 17-40L, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro & 135L

I'd like to fill that gap that goes beyond my current 200mm ceiling, but I have no practical need beyond having fun with them.

As a still-struggling business, I have to be practical with my lens selection. I also have a gap between 55mm and 70mm, but I don't think I'm missing out, using a 7D. The only overlap I currently have is with the purchase of a fast 50mm. I see additional fixed focal length lenses in my future, but they typically bring something else along besides their power.

I don't like an overlap. It feels like I pay twice for the same range. I wish my 17-40 was a 14-24.

My overlap status:

17-70 | 85 covered
24-40 covered twice
50 covered twice

You said you started this thread because you were bored. I certainly believe it. The overlap issue, along with the issue of not having a small amount of focal length covered with your present lenses, is about as interesting as listening to Kenny G. Who cares if there's a bit of overlap in two lenses that are useful to you? Life goes on. I hope your morning gets better!

I've owned 3 zooms (only 2 now 24-35mm) that all would shoot in the 28-35mm range. I'd rather have overlap than underlap. Also 70-105mm on 2 zooms. I will not buy the 24-70 as I have it covered with the 24-105.

I don't mind having gaps in FL range...there are some FL which I find little value in having.

At the same time, having two lenses which both overlap in zoom FL allows me to swap lenses less...an important thing when you do not have the time to swap lenses or even put down one camera to pick up another one with better FL selection...like in wedding coverage, when spontaneous action is a fleeting moment and you wish capture that!

nightcat wrote in post #15946019
You said you started this thread because you were bored. I certainly believe it. The overlap issue, along with the issue of not having a small amount of focal length covered with your present lenses, is about as interesting as listening to Kenny G. Who cares if there's a bit of overlap in two lenses that are useful to you? Life goes on. I hope your morning gets better!

I hope your morning gets better too.

You can see by my lens list that I like having a big lens focal length overlap. But at the same time, I often grab just my 30 and 85.

I've never given it any thought until someone asked.. at which point I realize I can get to:

• 500mm + on 3 lenses (including the use of T-Cons)
  
• 300mm - 400mm with about 5 different lenses,.
  
• 135mm on 4 lenses,
  
• 100mm on 4 lenses
  
• 70-85mm on 4 lenses,...
  
• 24-28mm on 4 lenses,
  
• 17mm on 2 lenses.
  

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #15946902
I've never given it any thought until someone asked.. at which point I realize I can get to:

• 500mm + on 3 lenses
  
• 300mm - 400mm with about 5 different lenses,.
  
• 135mm on 4 lenses,
  
• 100mm on 4 lenses
  
• 70-85mm on 4 lenses,...
  
• 24-28mm on 4 lenses,
  
• 17mm on 2 lenses.

My only non overlap would be 1000mm (500mm plus 2X) and 12mm-16mm (wide end of Sigma 12-24mm)

Do you have the Tamron 18-270mm? If not, acquiring it would permit

500mm + on 3 lenses
300mm - 400mm with about 5 different lenses,.
135mm on 5 lenses,
100mm on 5 lenses
70-85mm on 5 lenses,...
24-28mm on 5 lenses,
18mm on 5 lenses
17mm on 2 lenses.

Imagine of I had the BIGMA!