Lens 'Overlapping'?

What does it mean when you have lenses that are overlaping?

Is it like if I have a 100-400L and I have a 70-200 does that mean I have overlaping lenses?

~Josh

You overlap 100-200 in that case. No big deal.

if i had a 100-400 i'd buy a 24-105 to minimize overlapping

Joshua Bowden wrote in post #7936504
What does it mean when you have lenses that are overlaping?

Is it like if I have a 100-400L and I have a 70-200 does that mean I have overlaping lenses?

~Josh

The focal length ranges overlap. This does not mean that the lenses are redundant, especially if the 70-200 is a f/2.8 version of the lens.

Often the maximum aperture of a lens is just as important as the focal length. If it wasn't, hardly anyone would own prime lenses within the ranges of the zooms that they have.

I wouldn't worry about overlap too much--just buy the lenses you need. Now, if you were to buy a 17-55 and a 17-40, that would be a waste, but if you had a 24-105 and a 70-200, personally I wouldn't worry about the overlapping 35mm (and I don't).

When I first started looking at lenses I was worried about overlap. Now, I don't care about it since each lens serves a purpose. I have overlap in the 24-105L and 70-200L, yet I use each lens in different situations. Some posts will say get the 24-70L and 70-200L to cover all ranges and avoid overlap, but I wouldn't want to carry all those lenses.

As EcoRick said, each lens serves it purpose and you'll get overlapping in the Canon lineup of zooms. For example: 16-35 or 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400. The wider two and the longer two overlap. Take a look at the Nikon lineup and it goes 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. They've built their lens lineup with no overlaps while Canon is a bit different but not inferior because of it.

The opposite of overlap is gaps. In my case, I go 17-40 then 70-200. The gap from 40 to 70 exists but so far hasn't been a problem. I'd much prefer to have overlap though.

Overlap does bother me to a degree. For instance, I have a 70-200 plus 2 primes; 85, 135. You'd think that would mean that the primes were not needed but they do things the zoom just does not do (and vise versa) so all 3 lens have a place in my collection.

I'd love to downsize to just the zooms, but it wouldn't work for what I shoot so I need to have these primes.

I used to try and be efficient and avoid overlap and gaps as well, Now I have discovered that a person can have more than one lens of a certain length because they might produce different looks. Specialized tools. Look at my gear list and yes, I am selling some and trying to cut down a bit.

Sometimes overlap is unavoidable. The lenses can have different functions even in the same focal length. I have the 70-200 and the 100-400, hence overlap. But the 70-200 is 2.8IS and used for weddings and the 100-400 has an aperture of 5.6 on the 400 end, so more for birding and nature. You just need to see what the use of a lens if for yourself and not necessarily worry about overlap.

The overlapping is very useful to me because I have three camera bodies with three different crop factors. When I'm working in a dusty environment I like to switch bodies, rather than lenses, so combining bodies and lenses ahead of time gives me a fairly linear focal range.

However, if you are working with one body or crop factor, overlapping focal ranges can be a waste of money unless there are specific effects you are looking for.

Some overlap is good, since it mininizes lens changes, I find.

[QUOTE=timnosenzo;7936​682]I wouldn't worry about overlap too much--just buy the lenses you need. Now, if you were to buy a 17-55 and a 17-40, that would be a waste, but if you had a 24-105 and a 70-200, personally I wouldn't worry about the overlapping 35mm (and I don't).[/quote]

i remember someone once said they would buy the 24-70L instead to avoid overlap .

ed rader

bohdank wrote in post #7937278
Some overlap is good, since it mininizes lens changes, I find.

I totally agree. For instance if one were at Disney World you might use a 24-105 all day, but then use a 24-70 or 17-55 at night for low light and/or fireworks. A 70-200 is great for a ton of things but is a bit short for serious birding, but a 100-400 would do nicely and I'd hate to give up the flexibility of that extra 100mm to avoid overlap. Plus that 100 mm is handy for spotting birds and then zooming in. If you can afford to build a kit so you have the tools you need to minimize changing lenses to get the shot that might have got away or at least would make it better because of a few mm, overlap is quite handy.

ed rader wrote in post #7937295
i remember someone once said they would buy the 24-70L instead to avoid overlap .

ed rader

Are you rolling your eyes because I said that? If that's the case, I don't remember saying it, but I may have. Now I know better and I don't worry about it.