Lens List With Purpose of Each?

Would be cool to see a list of lenses, along with what they do best. E.g. portraits, bokeh, zoom, depth of field, macro, IQ, IS, etc. Include add-on lenses like wide angle and 2x, with plusses and minuses of use.

I see a bewildering array of choices, each with a price range from very affordable to staggering. "And every day the (magazines) bring more." Would be nice to make some sense of it all.

Nearly any lens you can imagine has a lens sample thread here. Just check the capability of the lens in question there.

Just found the thread "Table of Lenses". Downloaded the pdf files.

Guess I'll have to get deeper into photography before I get a handle on what lenses do what. Starting with the 18-55, 55-250, and the "nift-fifty" economy lenses. Probably take awhile to outgrow them. In the mean time, will haunt the forums and build knowledge base. When I need better, I should know better

buffumjr wrote in post #16030504
Just found the thread "Table of Lenses". Downloaded the pdf files.

Guess I'll have to get deeper into photography before I get a handle on what lenses do what. Starting with the 18-55, 55-250, and the "nift-fifty" economy lenses. Probably take awhile to outgrow them. In the mean time, will haunt the forums and build knowledge base. When I need better, I should know better

Yes, good plan. Its easy to wreck your budget and become a gear whore. I've done it, we all do at some point. But think in terms of what your current cant do that you want to do, when you find that out, then get what you need.

buffumjr wrote in post #16030418
Would be cool to see a list of lenses, along with what they do best. E.g. portraits, bokeh, zoom, depth of field, macro, IQ, IS, etc. Include add-on lenses like wide angle and 2x, with plusses and minuses of use.

I see a bewildering array of choices, each with a price range from very affordable to staggering. "And every day the (magazines) bring more." Would be nice to make some sense of it all.

Lenses are so versatile and experienced photographers so imaginative that such a list will never exist. For example: the ubiquitous 70-200mm f/2.8 lens can be used equally well for sports action and news gathering and portraiture, literally from shot to shot.

Depending on angles and framing, wide-angle lenses may be used for landscape images, but some photographers select longer lenses because they have less distortion in the corners.

Experienced photographers think in terms of focal lengths and fields of view and are aware of the general strengths and weaknesses of each general category of lens. From experience, they think "wide," "narrow," "fast" "deep," or "shallow" and then choose the unit that is most suitable for the task. Sometimes the factors are "light" or "heavy."

Unfortunately the only way to "make sense of it all" is to gather real photographic experience, day-by-day. The process can't be rushed and it takes time.

If I even tried to write down all the reasons I have any one lens, it would take way too long. And, it might just be the way I use them, not for all. See my gear list. Gene

Run away from the forum, because it will surround you with people who own a lot of lenses and it will seem like you don't measure up unless you spend 10k.

Did you buy already?

http://www.dslrtips.co​m …e/Lens_buying_g​uide.shtml
http://www.betterphoto​.com/buyers/lensesChoo​sing.asp

My experience with canon is that the lens lineup is engineered to push the user towards large L lenses. The quality is great, but for an amateur the setup becomes too big and too heavy.

If it's primes, you'll often see a pretty crappy f/2 prime for 200 dollars and the other choice is L f/1.2 for 1500 dollars. The problem is that the L lens is huge and weighs a lot. So unless you're prepared to spend a lot of money and carry around bulky lenses, you won't get the advantages of canon system.

Noink on the other hand offers excellent image quality in the lower end lenses which are better value... and their sensors are better.


PS: It's easy to focus on equipment and buying the best, and there should be some attention paid to gear selection. But if it detracts from shooting, then it's counterproductive.

buffumjr wrote in post #16030504
Starting with the 18-55, 55-250, and the "nift-fifty" economy lenses. Probably take awhile to outgrow them.

Yes these are good starting lenses. However, how long it takes people to outgrow them varies greatly from person to person.

In the mean time, any specific question you have, bring it up here.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16031249
My experience with canon is that the lens lineup is engineered to push the user towards large L lenses. The quality is great, but for an amateur the setup becomes too big and too heavy.

I'm not sure the Canon mid-grade stuff is so lousy. I felt like they caught up to Nikon on the middle cost range / amateur stuff when they introduced zooms like the EF-s 15-85 and 55-250, which are reasonable in performance while being small, light and reasonably affordable.

I have to admit to being only casually acquainted with the Nikon line, but how do they stack up on cost and performance against the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2?

JeffreyG wrote in post #16031876
I'm not sure the Canon mid-grade stuff is so lousy. I felt like they caught up to Nikon on the middle cost range / amateur stuff when they introduced zooms like the EF-s 15-85 and 55-250, which are reasonable in performance while being small, light and reasonably affordable.



I have to admit to being only casually acquainted with the Nikon line, but how do they stack up on cost and performance against the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2?

Same Q here as I really don't know much about Nikors, but these listed lenses give a lot of bang for the buck and these are all about $500 or so which is better than the new $800 or so standard of the new consumer primes that Canon is releasing now.

those add on wide angles, and 2X lenses are junk...that should help

seriously if you're interested in what a lens can do, the image sample archives is the best spot

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=107
WARNING: may lead to you desiring lenses you don't need...

JeffreyG wrote in post #16031876
I'm not sure the Canon mid-grade stuff is so lousy. I felt like they caught up to Nikon on the middle cost range / amateur stuff when they introduced zooms like the EF-s 15-85 and 55-250, which are reasonable in performance while being small, light and reasonably affordable.

It's not lousy. And there's decent lenses... and I didn't compare each lineup.

But in the stuff that would interest me, it seems noink has better offerings. Like the 50mm choices with canon are: nifty with a bad motor, 50/1.4 which is not ring USM and the L which is huge and expensive.

Noink has a full USM 50/1.8 with internal focusing and weather proofing
They also have a normal lens for crop cameras

Or the zooms with canon - it's f/2.8 or bust... I feel there's no middle ground.

I agree with most of the statements here, each lens certainly could have a completely different use for every person. That being said I'll list and tell for me, but it's only me, and YMMV.

Canon 8-15 fisheye. Specialty, effects lens. Ultra wide angle with tons of distortion. I Like the effect, I'm still trying to learn how to use it. Especially trying to figure out how to stay out of the frame myself, whether it's my shadow, or my feet.

Canon 17-40 f/4 UWA on my FF body now, WA on my Crop. This was my first lens purchase after digital with my crop body, and it remains in my bag. I will use this lens for just about anything that needs a wide shot. For my style that's not too often.

Canon 24-105 f/4 IS. Probably the lens that's on either of my bodies the most. WA to normal to short tele depending on the body. Great for walk around, great for everything short. If I'm going to take one lens, this is the one.

Canon 28-70 f/2.8. Oldie but goodie. I've coveted this lens since my film days and finally picked one up a couple of years ago. This is probably my second most used lens. I am debate wether this or the 24-105 stays. It may end up being both, even though they are pretty redundant. Same usage as the 24-105, just about everything. I've been putting this lens on more and more often lately, I miss the 70-105 part sometimes. but appreciate the speed.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. What can I really say here. Probably one of the best, if not the best short tele lenses made. This one replaced my much loved first L lens: the 80-200 f/2.8L drainpipe. It surpasses the old drainpipe in every way, but the drainpipe still had something about it. I use this for everything from landscape to portrait to close in sports. Great lens.

Canon 100-400 f/3.5-5.6L IS. This is a compromise lens. I had a 300 f/4L/1.4x Kenco TC, and got frustrated in fast action with changing distances. The ability to zoom with this lens makes it way more versatile than primes. Sports (in good light), critters, landscape, portraits. Good lens, versatile lens.

Canon 500 f/4.5L. Another oldie but goodie. Super Tele. Critters, landscape. Great lens, not versatile, but when you need 500mm...

Sigma 50 f/1.4. I just like this lens better than the Canon lens. When I need speed and a normal focal length, this is the one.

Canon 45 f/2.8. Brand new to me. Specialty lens. I plan to use to correct for building tilt, and to increase DOF for landscapes. I also plan to play with the miniature effect for fun. Basically a normal lens with a lot of specialty adjustments.

Every lens is meant to shoot volleyball.

Proof? ... ... ...

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1091324



Seriously, you can think of a list on lenses and then a list of the purpose of each OR you can do the opposite. Think of your purpose and then think of how different lenses can use their different strengths to capture the subject in different ways.

For instance, imagine a rock concert being held at a football stadium. The fisheye might be used to capture an image of the venue. An ultra wide angle could get a shot of the crowd from the stage. In the star's dressing room, a wide angle or normal lens could be a good choice. From the front row, a medium telephoto might be perfect and the super-telephoto lenses could be used for tight close ups from further back. Every focal length brings something to the table. Use them all to bring a full perspective.

Phil

I always accidentally seem to mix up lens purposes...
I bought my 85mm f/1.8 for portraits, yet two of my favorite landscape shots are from this lens.
I bought my 17-40mm for landscape, but have shot a bunch of portraits with it that got picked by the client and ended up on an album cover.
I bought the 100mm macro for macro, but have shot many more portraits with it since I moved to full frame (yet still refuse to sell the 85mm because it's better for that).

The list kind of goes on like this. The trouble with having more than a handful of lenses if that you usually can't bring them all at once. That means you either need very versatile lenses and look beyond the best possible option for each purpose, or you need to anticipate what you'll be shooting and bring lenses that fill that need. Or end up somewhere in the middle... I don't bring a 70-300, 100mm macro or 17-40 to a portrait session, and when I go out shooting in nature I might not bring the 28mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 or 24-105 (although the latter has a pretty permanent space reserved in my bag).

My guess is that with building a lens kit, it comes down to what you know you'll want to shoot versus what's financially reasonable to get. A 70-300 could be a better idea than a 70-200 and a 300mm prime, but if you're specialized in anything that requires a lot of shooting in those areas (wildlife, sports) you might want faster apertures and even longer lenses. Similar with a 24-105 or a handful of primes (24, 35, 50, 85) in that range.