Why have so many lenses when only 1 will do?

I wanted to get a little more insight into how people have put together their lens gear list. Perhaps this single thread could help those who are looking to change their lenses around.

So the main question: Why did you put your lens kit together the way that you did? I'll start.

First, just like to say I'd like to have every lens out there to choose from. Unfortunately, I don't have that much disposable income. That said and putting cost issues aside (because it's an obvious limiting factor for most of us), I made decisions regarding which lenses I needed most to have.

Since going all full-frame, this is what I have:

• 16-35 f2.8 - I had the 24LII when I was on crop. It was limiting to me at the time, so I sold it and bought this. I've thought about going back, but I do find myself in plenty of situations where I very much appreciate being able to go to 16mm. This lens lets me shoot 16mm when I need it or 24mm and 35mm when I want. It's actually pretty versatile in my book.

• 50mm f1.2 - Oh boy, do I love shooting 50mm. I'm not much of a 35mm kind of guy, I guess. I had the f1.8, Canon f1.4 and Sigma (non-Art) 1.4. I had considered waiting for the release of the Sigma Art, but I jumped at the f1.2. If I had to do it over, I'd be tempted by the Art's sharpness. However, I find that my 50mm bokeh is a bit swirly and I like that. I don't think I've seen that in the Art. Bottom line, I haven't been tempted away.

• 85mm f1.8 - I think this lens is just great bang for the buck. It's light and convenient to have in the camera bag. Mine doesn't actually see much use, but when I pull it out I'm happy with it. One day, it'll be replaced by the 85LII, but there's not real urgency with this in my gear list.

• 70-200 f2.8 v1 - I've waffled on this lens for a long time. It's the longest surviving member of my camera bag and has been a trustworthy old friend. I've considered replacing it with a 135L, but the zoom range is just so damn convenient. f2.8 at 200mm provides similar separation to f2 on the 135L... to my eyes, at least. It's not likely to leave my camera bag unless I finally decide it's too heavy. I haven't really found justification to replace it with a v2.

• A 24-70L - I've considered the convenience of have a 24mm to 70mm zoom range. However, there's too much overlap with the 16-35 and I'm perfectly content with the 50mm serving as my mid-focal length range. If I ever decide to get a 24-70, then I might get rid of the 16-35 and get something like a 14mm or 17 TSE. Otherwise, the images from a 24-70 lacks dramatic punch for me. Probably not the lens's fault... it's the photographer.

I am lucky enough to have work supplied gear.
In my bag I have
14mm f2.8
16-35 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
50mm f2.5 compact macro
70-200 f2.8
And 1.4 and 2x converters.
I also have access to 300 and 400 f2.8 and 50 and 600 f4.

Unless I need the extra width (one specific job, once a fortnight) or extra length (sport, concerts, some crime scenes etc) I use just the 16-35 and 70-200, one on each body (1DX)

If I had to cut all the gear down to a 3 lens kit, it would be 16-35, 70-200, 400 f2.8, which would cover 99% of what I shoot, with TCs and a set of extension rings, it would cover 100%

Echo63 wrote in post #17118828
I am lucky enough to have work supplied gear.

...

If I had to cut all the gear down to a 3 lens kit, it would be 16-35, 70-200, 400 f2.8, which would cover 99% of what I shoot, with TCs and a set of extension rings, it would cover 100%

So you would not have some of those lenses if work did not provide them?

If you only had a 3 lenses kit, what do you shoot that 16-35, 70-200 and 400 cover you? Why don't you need the other lenses?

Heya,

I choose Canon, for starters, because I'm used to the system and I like their lens line up and the third party lens options, as well as the ease of adapting vintage lenses. Canon consistently has the edge on autofocus systems and their ISO seems to be great for performance, even if the sensor tech is not the industry leader.

From there, I stay with SLR because of the interchangeability of lenses. Now that mirrorless is here and there's interchangeable lenses there too, the reason to stay with SLR is starting to grey out between the two. I will keep both systems for now, as I have SLR and Mirrorless at this point. But Mirrorless doesn't have the robust autofocus that the SLR has yet, so until that changes, and the Mirrorless has speed and autofocus that can match even an entry SLR that is modern, then I will continue to keep both.

For me the point of having this system is to have the ability to have the right tool for the job, and that's the lens mainly. Different combinations of focal lengths and apertures, and optical qualities such as sharpness at those apertures, contrast, color, etc. There's no reason in my mind to stay with SLR if I was going to just use a single lens of any kind, prime or zoom. It defeats a lot of what the SLR provides. There are plenty of good quality cameras that have a single permanent lens that is either like a prime, or a zoom (and sometimes a super zoom). When I think of going down to 3~5 lenses, I just feel like... well, why bother keeping the system at that point if another system can do all of that with one? But then I look and see... no one system covers it all, so we come back to the property of these cameras that is interchangeable lenses. This lets you use the right tool. If you're compromising it's by choice, or by limitation of having it.

I have 4 cameras currently, 1 Mirrorless APS-C, 1 Full Frame SLR, 2 APS-C SLR. They all share the same lenses so I can use the right tool for the right job. But frankly, the camera matters less and less, and the more you use several cameras, the more you find that it truly is just a few features per camera that make a difference for what you're doing, and it's subjective and preferential.

I have a bunch of lenses. I buy & sell often. I've bought the same lens twice. Several times now. I get it when I want it for the job, and later if I'm not using it, I get rid of it again. They hold value. The cameras hold no value. But the lenses seem to hold very well over the years.

I use both zooms & primes. I vastly prefer primes, but zooms are more affordable than primes for certain things. And that's due to physical size of glass (no one is buying narrow aperture telephoto primes; or even wide primes with narrow aperture; we buy primes for their wide aperture that zooms simply don't do).

My lenses range from 11mm to 600mm at this point. Zooms & primes. I have quite a few lenses that are the same focal length (28mm, 50mm and 85mm) but have different properties (aperture, bokeh character, etc). They range from modern to vintage (lots of Pentax M42 mounts).

I prefer to have 2 cameras on me, one with a prime, and one with a zoom (or another prime). I do a lot of manual focus photography too so which body I have dictates if I'm doing that or not.

The day I no longer use primes, will be the day an affordable zoom comes out that has F1.4 or F2 constant, and it's prime-sharp at those apertures. Sigma is inching closer and closer to this being possible. So it's entirely possible. But I also appreciate the weight and size of a prime. Carrying a 7lb brick in your hands, or two, gets old.

What I shoot varies. Like tidal waves, sometime I'm shooting a lot of one thing. Then I change it up and I shoot a lot of something else. I shoot primarily macro, landscape, portrait, astro and wildlife. I shoot mostly wildlife, portrait & landscape weekly. I used to shoot macro daily when it was cooler outside. So I have a lot of tools for each.

Lately I've been shooting a lot of 11mm F2.8, 22mm F2, 85mm F1.4 and 600mm F8.

Regardless, I vastly prefer having several cameras and several lenses than one setup with one lens. I can do more with different options that I all want, with no down time.

I'm about to head to the local swamp, and I will have a gripped APS-C with 150-600mm VC zoom attached in my hands, and on a strap, my EOS-M with 22mm F2 in tow. Later tonight, I will probably have my 11-16mm F2.8 utlrawide on an APS-C, and again, a 22mm F2 prime on another camera or possibly a 35mm F2 IS on it, if tonight's sunset is worth going out for. Who knows. But I change up my range from 11mm to 600mm in a single day in two different locations hours apart often. I shoot near daily when I'm not at work.

+++++++++++++++

In an ideal world, I'd want several options, and these are along those lines of what I would want to cover everything I do on a weekly basis, so it's not just "once in a while."

2~3 cameras. I want a full frame (6D would be fine; I currently use a 5D), an APS-C (any modern one would work, 70D probably ideally right now; currently use an XSi & T4i/650D) and a mirrorless compact (EOS-M serves this fine for my use of it now).

11-16 F2.8 II ultrawide. It works on both full frame & APS-C. Ideal for me because it's fast for night use in astro, and with a multi-coated filter, I don't get bad flares anymore, so it functions in the day too perfectly fine.
22mm F2 for my EOS-M, pancake. Travel, walk around, day to day when I don't want a bulky camera and big lens around. Performs in low light like restaurants & bars.
35mm F2 IS for portrait with context and landscape/astro/etc/it​'s a general walk around lens for me often.
85mm F1.4, for portrait work; 85mm F1.8 for sports and indoor events where speed maters.
180mm macro prime. 2.0X TC involved.
600mm prime or zoom, I would prefer a prime, but they're too costly at this range.
Tons of vintage primes that I use for fun. Like a dozen.

Very best,

If I could only have three lenses (reasonably priced) for a FF, two would be the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD, and the EF 70-200 f/4L IS. The third would be a tough decision, between the EF 100 f/2.8L IS and Tamron 150-600. I love macro, but I also like having a long lens for bigger wild critters. I guess I'd pick the 100

LV Moose wrote in post #17118964
If I could only have three lenses...

If that's the case, then why have the lenses you have now?

Lenses
EF 28-135 IS
EF 70-200 f/4L IS
EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
EF-S 10-22
Σ 35 f/1.4
Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD

Can you tell us why you put together this lens kit?

Nathan wrote in post #17118981
If that's the case, then why have the lenses you have now?

Lenses
EF 28-135 IS
EF 70-200 f/4L IS
EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro
EF-S 10-22
Σ 35 f/1.4
Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD

Can you tell us why you put together this lens kit?

28-135 came with my 40D, which I still have. If I got rid of that body and had a 24-70, I'd sell that lens.
10-22 is for a crop only (my 40D)
Sigma 35, because I wanted a nice fast lens near that range for my 50DIII and I don't have the 24-70 (yet).

And anyway, that was if could only have three lenses for a Full Frame. But I can have more, and I have two bodies (my wife likes to shoot, too, and I also like a back-up.

I have a very broad set of lenses for my work. Uniquely, I have both the 24mm tilt shift, and the 24mm f/1.4. It turns out that I have more lenses that are 24mm than anything else. (24-70, 16-35, 24 f/1.4, and 24 tilt shift)

Of all the lenses I have, I do in fact use the 24-70 the most when I'm at a party or with friends because I can jump out to 24mm if I need wide angle, and I can zip in to 70mm if I need telephoto.

I do prefer primes though. My 24mm tilt shift lens produces the most beautiful images out of everything I own because everything is so perfectly lined up that the images look extremely professional and clean with straight lines and crisp detail. It's a subconscious factor that makes the images pop out because casual observers won't know why the image looks so clean, but it's really because the lines are straight and the perspective is accurate to what things look like with our actual eyes.

My 400mm f/2.8 is my favorite on the telephoto end. I love that lens. I can capture a hummingbird and it will take up up 1/8 of the uncropped image. That's amazing. Photographing butterflies, people playing volleyball, anything that you want eye-popping depth of field for, this lens can do it. It's heavy and you need fast shutter speeds though, that's the disadvantage.

In terms of lenses I don't like. I don't really get much use out of my 16-35. I don't like the distortion that the edges show. If there is a person standing at the edge of the frame, then they get stretched and don't look natural. I don't like that. It looks bad and is very unflattering to the person. Pieces of art, animals, anything really that shows up in the edge frame of the lens at 16mm looks terrible and not like reality -- so for that reason, the 16-35 is the lens I own that I like the least.

You could always throw some extension tubes on the 70-200 and go back to the 150-600 instead of the 100.

Nathan wrote in post #17118804
Why did you put your lens kit together the way that you did?

Because I was limited by price will be the answer for most. If I wasn't limited by price, I'd own a lot more, and nicer lenses.

In order of purchase-

50/1.4 - Everyone needs a fast 50, right? This lens still spends a lot of time on my camera.

24-105 - Purchased after borrowing my friend's for a long weekend. Still my walk around lens most of the time when I don't want to carry more.

100-400 - Needed more reach than that 24-105 and though I'd be smart and cover the whole range with two lenses. Too bulky to throw in a bad "just in case".

17-40 - Needed a wide angle. Doesn't get used a ton, but irreplaceable when I do need it.

15mm FE - Always wanted one. Got used so I could sell without losing money if I got tired of it. Like the 17-40, it doesn't get a ton of use but its cool when I need it.

70-200 f/4 - Got a deal from a friend. Quickly became one of my favorites. Its so much lighter than the 100-400 that I don't hesitate to throw it in the bag just in case. This is my "kids in the back yard" lens among other uses. Having this lens relegated the 100-400 to planes and birds duty.

100mm Macro - Even though it makes a nice portrait lens, I use it almost exclusively for macro, or at least small-ish things like flowers.

70-200 f/4 IS - Bought to replace the non-IS 70-200. I didn't have real pressing need for IS, but I got a good deal on it so the difference wasn't much. IS is nice to have when I need it.

sirquack wrote in post #17119008
You could always throw some extension tubes on the 70-200 and go back to the 150-600 instead of the 100.

I have extension tubes. They're nice to have, but they're no substitute for the 100 L IS (I do use them in conjunction with that lens, though).
I also have a 1.4X TC, which I could use for a little extra reach on the 70-200 if I had to give up the 150-600.

My kit has really evolved over the past two years as I have made the transition to a full frame 5D3 body for most of my shooting. I do still have a crop 7D, but that body has become a single purpose tool for wildlife.

16-35 f/4L IS -- this is my most recent addition, replacing the 17-40L for my wide angle needs. I use the lens mostly for landscape work, so f/2.8 has never been a need here. When I shot crop only, I had a EFS 10-22mm and never missed not having a faster aperture

24-105L -- While this lens is much maligned around here, it works well for me as a general purpose walk around and landscape lens. It came as part of the 5D3 kit, which made it much more affordable. I like having the added reach over a 24-70 f/2.8, and I have a couple of prime lenses that meet my low light and narrow DOF needs.

70-200 f/4 IS -- I bought this lens about a year after it first came out. While it does not get used nearly as much as it used to since I added the 100-400L, I cannot bring myself to sell it. The lens is a nice alternative when I want to travel lighter and do not need the reach of 400mm. It also takes a 1.4x TC very well, in case I want a little more reach and still want to travel light. I also use it occasionally to shoot ice hockey, as the 5D3's excellent high ISO performance compensates for the slower f/4 aperture over the bigger, heavier and more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 models.

100-400L -- My "go to" wildlife lens. It will remain glued to my 7D when we travel to destinations where I am shooting both wildlife and landscape, thereby greatly reducing my need to swap lenses. We also have a membership to our local zoo and visit 6-7 times per year. For those visits this lens gets attached to the 5D3 and provides terrific results.

50L -- Primarily an indoor lens that gets used at family/friend gatherings. I started using a 28mm f/1.8 prime on a crop for this purpose as a lower profile solution compared with a larger zoom lens, so ended up migrating to the 50L when I went full frame. I initially tried the 50 f/1.4, but its AF performance was noticeably inferior compared with the USM lenses I own, so when I found a good deal on a 50L I jumped on it.

135L -- Probably my least used lens, but it provides the best results when it does get used. I use it for more intimate shots at family gatherings, as well as occasionally at ice hockey. It replaced the 85 f/1.8 from my crop shooting days. It takes a 1.4x TC well, too, which can make it double as a 200mm f/2.8 (yes, I know it's actual 189mm).

40mm f/2.8 pancake -- A great light weight "walk around" prime lens. It takes up almost zero space in my bag, yet provides portability similar to some of the larger mirrorless bodies without making me deal with different camera ergonomics or the cost of buying another body & lenses. It provides very nice results for such a small, inexpensive lens.

vengence wrote in post #17119018
Because I was limited by price will be the answer for most. If I wasn't limited by price, I'd own a lot more, and nicer lenses.

Thanks. Already covered that in the original post, which is why in my answer I explained reasons while also putting cost issues aside. It is just too 9 virus an answer. There are other reasons besides cost... especially when it comes to putting together a set of focal lengths.

I have so many lenses since a 16-300mm f/2.8 doesnt exist

16-35II - The widest fast zoom canon offers. A 14-24 would be nice, but we all can't have what we want. The fact that it can go to 35 makes it much more versatile since I don't need to switch out to my 24-70 when the scenario drastically changes (i.e. weddings)

24-70 - A must have for pretty much any type of shooting. If i'm lazy, i'll just grab the 24-70 and cover an entire event while leaving the rest of my gear at home. I'll just walk out the door with a 1dx, 24-70 and my 600ex and nothing else (maybe CF cards, they're kinda important)

24-105 - The perfect vacation lens; light, decent range, excellent image quality and cheap. I'll take the grip off my 6D and with this lens paired to it, I almost don't notice that its hanging off my shoulder.

Σ35/1.4 - Sharp. Bokeh. Wide. What else can you ask for? Low light AF performance? Psh, no lens can focus accurately at low light.

50/1.8 - I think of this as a body cap that happens to be a lens. Very nifty indeed

50/1.2 - The Fast and the Frustrating. It takes real skill to shoot anything that's not an out of focus mess, so this is my go to lens if I want to slow things down and focus on shooting than running and gunning.

70-200 IS II - I named this Moses since it has the god given power to part large crowds. "Get out of the way, he's a professional photographer" can be heard whispered from the crowds.

135/2 - It compresses images like a supertele. That alone is my reason to get one.

300/2.8L IS - Poor man's 400/600. I shoot motorsports, so its kinda necessary to have one of these. I shoot them mostly with extenders.