Lens 'Overlapping'?

timnosenzo wrote in post #7937399
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.

no. i don't remember who said it. i just brought it up because it fits in with the whole ridiculous topic of overlap.

i don't believe in redundancy, i buy lenses that i use, i don't believe in "filling the gap" with a prime and i think overlap is a good thing .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #7937427
no. i don't remember who said it. i just brought it up because it fits in with the whole ridiculous topic of overlap.

i don't believe in redundancy, i buy lenses that i use, i don't believe in "filling the gap" with a prime and i think overlap is a good thing .

ed rader

Ahh, I agree.

Quite. My current zoom lineup is 17-40, 24-105, 70-200. And I'll hopefully be adding a 100-400 to that (and no, not getting rid of the 'completely overlapped' 70-200 any time soon, because an image stabilised F2.8 zoom is a wonderful thing to have). And I've got a number of primes that I'll also be adding to. Different tools for different purposes.

Add another vote for the "Don't bother wasting brain space worrying about overlapping ranges" basket.

I'm considering getting an 85mm f/1.2 *and* an 85mm f/1.8. Overlapping part of a zoom range is nothing to be bothered with at all. Get lenses that will allow you to shoot teh stuff you want to shoot.

[QUOTE=ed rader;7937295]

timnosenzo wrote in post #7936682
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

It's not so much a case of avoiding overlap as potentially getting something which plugs a gap elsewhere or is otherwise better.

In the above example, you could get the 24-70 and enjoy f/2.8 over its range whereas, if you had a 100-400 instead of the 70-200 then you might not be able to live with the gap twixt 70 and 100 and the 24-105 would thus be potentially better, even though it's only f/4.

n1as wrote in post #7936750
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.

You must have a similar lens lineup. I use the zooms for everyday use when I don't know what I'm going to shoot and the primes when I have a specific idea. You're correct that the primes will do more than the zooms, especially when you have 4.0 zooms and much faster primes.