Everyone of them. Most of us NEED all of our lenses, no matter how long since we've used them.
That's part of the disease.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What is your lens choice for a beginner and what is the one lens you cannot do without....focal length(s)/aperture?
- Thread starter Buck987
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everyone of them. Most of us NEED all of our lenses, no matter how long since we've used them.
That's part of the disease.
IMO, the first expensive lens you buy is the one that you think you'll get the most out of. The first premium lens I bought was the PL12-60 2.8-4.0, which is M43 so that's the FF eq of 24-120. I don't regret that lens, as it offers a wide range, is sharp, and has a very short minimum focal distance. Very versatile lens, really. That said, if I started over today, I might have skipped it for a nice telephoto first, since that's what I use the most by a very wide margin. Conversely, if you shoot a lot of portraits, get a good portrait lens. Macro? A good macro lens. Landscapes or architecture? A good wide angle lens. You can always round out your collection as you grow into the craft.
I have had the 18-140 F/3.5-5.6 VR longer. The 35mm F/1.8 is fairly new to me. It may sound funny but the camera i have is so light i like the heft of the zoom lens more on the camera. My quest now is to decide on a good fast zoom type lens.
Interesting thread with many, many very good responses.
For me personally in order of frequency of use and importance (all focal lengths relating to a FF sensor):
(1) Either a fast 35mm or 50mm prime. Ideally f/1.4, but 1.8/2 acceptable depending on the lens characteristics. These are my 2 favorite focal lengths and I couldn't live without a good lens at one or the other. I tend to favor 35mm, but 50mm is quite acceptable and I've been shooting that focal length more recently. I would *never* go on a trip or just out-and-about shooting without a good 35mm/50mm option.
(2) 21mm (or 20mm) prime. I love this focal length, though it is less useful for me than either 35mm or 50mm. If I was limited to one lens, it would be either a fast 35mm or 50mm (with a 24-70 f/2.8 being a close second and a good compromise). If I was allowed another lens it would be a 21mm prime.
(3) 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. A very good workhorse compromise. Depending on the camera system, it will tend to be bigger and bulkier compared to primes and you lose some speed (either one or two stops). But a good all around compromise lens depending on what you intend to shoot.
(4) 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Bigger and bulkier (and more expensive). But a useful focal length range for many applications. It's a lens I use relatively frequently, but not as often as the above.
(5) Macro. I shoot with a macro lens less often than the above, but I use a macro lens relatively frequently. I would feel lost without a macro lens option at my disposal.
(6) A fast 85mm/105mm/135mm. Great for portraits. Can be good for landscapes too. A good 70-200 f/2.8 zoom can cover this range, though primes are usually faster and often offer better optical performance. Somewhat niche. Would not be my first choice for a "good" lens, but very useful to have as an option.
Focal lengths I personally don't like:
(1) 28mm. For me, this is a horrible focal length. I always want something either wider or longer. I don't shoot at 28mm with a zoom and my 28mm primes get zero use. Just not a focal length I favor.
(2) 18mm. Another focal length that I don't favor. 21mm is my sweet spot for wide angle. 18mm just never seems to work for me.
All of the above are what I use the most.
There is a *huge* caveat when thinking about any lens purchase that relates to the specific lens in question. While it's good to think about focal length, aperture, and zoom range (if not a prime lens), the reality is that all lenses are not equal. Not even close. While the specs might be the same, the optical characteristics of each lens are unique. Some lenses are awesome, some lenses suck. Price alone isn't a way to distinguish between the two (nor is brand). There are some very expensive lenses that really aren't that great. There are some relatively inexpensive lenses that are optically amazing and real bargains. Take the time to read multiple reviews before you make a purchase.
For me personally in order of frequency of use and importance (all focal lengths relating to a FF sensor):
(1) Either a fast 35mm or 50mm prime. Ideally f/1.4, but 1.8/2 acceptable depending on the lens characteristics. These are my 2 favorite focal lengths and I couldn't live without a good lens at one or the other. I tend to favor 35mm, but 50mm is quite acceptable and I've been shooting that focal length more recently. I would *never* go on a trip or just out-and-about shooting without a good 35mm/50mm option.
(2) 21mm (or 20mm) prime. I love this focal length, though it is less useful for me than either 35mm or 50mm. If I was limited to one lens, it would be either a fast 35mm or 50mm (with a 24-70 f/2.8 being a close second and a good compromise). If I was allowed another lens it would be a 21mm prime.
(3) 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. A very good workhorse compromise. Depending on the camera system, it will tend to be bigger and bulkier compared to primes and you lose some speed (either one or two stops). But a good all around compromise lens depending on what you intend to shoot.
(4) 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Bigger and bulkier (and more expensive). But a useful focal length range for many applications. It's a lens I use relatively frequently, but not as often as the above.
(5) Macro. I shoot with a macro lens less often than the above, but I use a macro lens relatively frequently. I would feel lost without a macro lens option at my disposal.
(6) A fast 85mm/105mm/135mm. Great for portraits. Can be good for landscapes too. A good 70-200 f/2.8 zoom can cover this range, though primes are usually faster and often offer better optical performance. Somewhat niche. Would not be my first choice for a "good" lens, but very useful to have as an option.
Focal lengths I personally don't like:
(1) 28mm. For me, this is a horrible focal length. I always want something either wider or longer. I don't shoot at 28mm with a zoom and my 28mm primes get zero use. Just not a focal length I favor.
(2) 18mm. Another focal length that I don't favor. 21mm is my sweet spot for wide angle. 18mm just never seems to work for me.
All of the above are what I use the most.
There is a *huge* caveat when thinking about any lens purchase that relates to the specific lens in question. While it's good to think about focal length, aperture, and zoom range (if not a prime lens), the reality is that all lenses are not equal. Not even close. While the specs might be the same, the optical characteristics of each lens are unique. Some lenses are awesome, some lenses suck. Price alone isn't a way to distinguish between the two (nor is brand). There are some very expensive lenses that really aren't that great. There are some relatively inexpensive lenses that are optically amazing and real bargains. Take the time to read multiple reviews before you make a purchase.
Weight is your friend at the long end. If the kit is really light, it takes a lot of technique to get what you want. At the same time, you don't necessarily want one of these!
Weight is your friend at the long end. If the kit is really light, it takes a lot of technique to get what you want. At the same time, you don't necessarily want one of these!
View attachment 1742505
OMG! I saw a picture of a guy with a 'lens' that had to be literally 3 feet long. He said he uses it in 'the valley', and other places in LA, to get 'pictures' of the famous taking their garbage out in their robe, and fuzzy slippers. The 'lens' looked like a literal telescope with a camera brand name on it. I have an 8-inch Schmidt, and it is just slightly larger than his 'lens'.
Stalking people is so sick... I mean, why doesn't the National Enquirer just buy their own satellite, and stalk people from space. So sick... Hell, a damn drone flew over my house about a month ago. The damn thing circled back, apparently to see me, and then kept going the way it was originally heading. Apparently I'm 'not worth it'?
Jerks...
????
Last edited:
Weight is your friend at the long end. If the kit is really light, it takes a lot of technique to get what you want. At the same time, you don't necessarily want one of these!
View attachment 1742505
We all need one of those. It's part of the disease.
If someone gives you one and you don't want it, my address is................................
HAH! A friend of a friend said that if you have a budget for stuff like that, you aren't going to make it. I found that rather dickish, but, having acquired a biking fetish, kinda understand it.
Anything with carbon fiber in it, or on it, will cost enough to make you reach for a paper bag, and possibly a nitro tab.
OMG! I saw a picture of a guy with a 'lens' that had to be literally 3 feet long. He said he uses it in 'the valley', and other places in LA, to get 'pictures' of the famous taking their garbage out in their robe, and fuzzy slippers. The 'lens' looked like a literal telescope with a camera brand name on it. I have an 8-inch Schmidt, and it is just slightly larger than his 'lens'.
Stalking people is so sick... I mean, why doesn't the National Enquirer just buy their own satellite, and stalk people from space. So sick... Hell, a damn drone flew over my house about a month ago. The damn thing circled back, apparently to see me, and then kefp going the way it was originally heading. Apparently I'm 'not worth it'?
Jerks...
????
It's sick that people do that stuff. It's even more sick that people buy that stuff.
It plays so well to people that don't have a life.
This was rather weird, but there was a community meeting where I was lurking, and someone was going on about 'pro-life', and valuing life, and stuff, and someone stood up and just trashed that person. 'You want people to lead the life you do? You read the National Enquirer, you send BS crap to friends via email, you stalk people trying to save their lives, and spend so much time fomenting evil and wretched thoughts in people, and showering people with your dogmatic beliefs. And you want people to have more people suffering through the life that you lead, and being subject to the bizarre crap you believe? Wow... But they were out shaming people trying to save their lives the next day.
Same people that watch 'reality TV', and get their Jones on...
Sick. They are afraid of living the life they *could* have...
And hate seems to play well to that subclass of humanity.
You'll know when it's delivery day because you'll hear the UPS truck's rear bumper dragging the ground.
I didn't give one, I know lenses can go for big, big bucks. I believe in spending what you need to get good quality that lasts. I have been checking out some of the 24-70 and other mid zoom (is that correct?) lenses that posters have mentioned. I think something in the $700-1k range would be possible.
And the driver checks to see if someone is home before he hauls that thing to the door. That's what happened to the 8-inch I got.
'Just checking. I'd hate to have to drag that thing all the way back to the truck.' Why? 'I need a signature.' (Deep sigh) He was glad I was home...
That's doable but you'll probably be getting something with somewhat smaller apertures at that price. Probably in the f4-f5.6 range. If you want wider apertures you are looking at upwards of twice that amount.
You also need to think about form factor. You can use a full frame lens (Nikon's FX) with a crop sensor (Nikon's DX) but you can't use a DX lens on an FX body. This is important if you think you might want to go to an FX body at some point. The equivalent angle of view of a FX lens on a DX body is 1.5 times. So, your 24mm FX lens on an DX body has the same angle of view as a 36mm DX lens on the same body. It's important to keep this in mind as you make your choices.
Last edited:
Decades ago I had a Nikon 85mm lens that was great. Unfortunately the lens and camera was stolen in 1983.
I don’t think that information is going to help Buck decide anything.
Depends on the specific camera brand and format that you're using, I would reckon.
For example:
For my Canon 77d (APS-c), the EFs 18-135mm (with image stabilization and nano focusing motor) seemed to be the best place to start.
For my Canon EOS R, the RF 24-105mm "L" was the natural choice.
Although many Canon mirrorless users seem to like the RF 24-240mm for its versatility...
For example:
For my Canon 77d (APS-c), the EFs 18-135mm (with image stabilization and nano focusing motor) seemed to be the best place to start.
For my Canon EOS R, the RF 24-105mm "L" was the natural choice.
Although many Canon mirrorless users seem to like the RF 24-240mm for its versatility...
Nikon makes a wonderful 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, definitely worth whatever the cost! I had the first version, which was outstanding, and then they brought out another even more outstanding version some years later. Since you use a Nikon camera, it would be a good idea to stick with that brand and go for that terrific 24-70mm.
Newer cameras that have better ISO's don't need faster glass as they can handle the dark better.
Since you already have a start with gear, my approach would be to just go out and use it. Time will tell you what you are missing and how often you are missing it. Your wallet, and perhaps your spouse, will control how (or not) you address that need.
For example those rare occasions where I wish I had a very wide angle lens, are often easily solved by splicing two or more images together on the computer. I seldom need the extra width both horizontally and vertically. That of course is just me and is at least partially tied to the fact that my go to camera is waterproof and shock resistant, and travels in my jacket or life vest pocket. The choices in this niche are incredibly limited, so I learn to make do.
For example those rare occasions where I wish I had a very wide angle lens, are often easily solved by splicing two or more images together on the computer. I seldom need the extra width both horizontally and vertically. That of course is just me and is at least partially tied to the fact that my go to camera is waterproof and shock resistant, and travels in my jacket or life vest pocket. The choices in this niche are incredibly limited, so I learn to make do.
Last edited:
Just a thought-- what is your plan for your camera body? 24-70 is usually a full frame lens and gives you some latitude to upgrade your camera body without having to buy new lenses; if you don't think full frame is in your future, you might consider something that would have a similar field of view on a crop sensor body such as the one you currently have.