the right number of lens to have.
i would like to know how much is too much, or too little. i have it in mind to buy two other lens to go along with the 55mm lens that i already have with my camera. i am thinking of buying a 85mm, and a 55- 300mm telephoto zoom lens. would this be too much, or would either one of the two be good enough to go with what i already have.
It depends on what you like to shoot ( and how much money you have to spend).
For what camera sensor size?
I shoot full-frame for work and do a lot of event photography with two lenses- the 24-70 and 70-200 Nikon lenses.
(have a few macros too but they don't get used very much)
Just bought a 24-120 to replace the heavily-used 24-70.
Mac
Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
There is no one number of lenses that is the right number to have.
It depends on the photographer and the type(s) of photography that is being pursued.
When you have the lenses you need to accomplish what you want to achieve, you will have the right number of lenses for you.
Too little: No lens. It would be silly to have a 'body' only...
Too much? Sky and your wallet is your limit (as well as weight thought)
Usually folks have specialized lens suitable for their purpose and a walk around. So the more diversify you are the more lenses... Goes back to $$$$
clive hall wrote:
i would like to know how much is too much, or too little. i have it in mind to buy two other lens to go along with the 55mm lens that i already have with my camera. i am thinking of buying a 85mm, and a 55- 300mm telephoto zoom lens. would this be too much, or would either one of the two be good enough to go with what i already have.
What do you plan to do with your camera?
If you are going to do a lot of macro then you need at least one macro lens.
If a lot of wildlife/birds you are going to need a much longer lens (sharper than that 55-300 also) unless you are either lucky, have a lot of time to wait for them to come to you, a perfect place to shoot or are an expert stalker.
Landscape and astro photography will call for wide angle and/or a fast F stop.
You get the idea, right.
I have two of every lens made, just in case I want to use two bodies!
I ALWAYS have the right lens too!!
But I have to admit, my backpack weighs a TON, maybe even a little bit more!!!
SS
clive hall wrote:
i would like to know how much is too much, or too little. i have it in mind to buy two other lens to go along with the 55mm lens that i already have with my camera. i am thinking of buying a 85mm, and a 55- 300mm telephoto zoom lens. would this be too much, or would either one of the two be good enough to go with what i already have.
I'm not sure but this might be a little too much
Not too many if you stay within the brand of your camera and buy one of each.
At least one.
I personal use two system, Leica M and Canon EOS full-frame. I have three focal lengths for the Leica, 35, 50 and 90mm, but own many different 50mm lenses.
For Canon I have a 24-105 zoom that came with it (and which I never use as I don't like zooms), a 35/1.4 and a 100/2.8 Macro. I will add a 24/1.4 wide-angle and a 135/2 telephoto, and then I'm done.
Still despite the nice collection, I could live very happy with just one lens, either a 35mm or a 50mm and not really care if anything else was lacking. That is usually how I travel, one body and one lens, and its always been enough.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
clive hall wrote:
i would like to know how much is too much, or too little. i have it in mind to buy two other lens to go along with the 55mm lens that i already have with my camera. i am thinking of buying a 85mm, and a 55- 300mm telephoto zoom lens. would this be too much, or would either one of the two be good enough to go with what i already have.
This won't answer your question but it is pretty true for many of us - there is no such thing as too many lenses. Each lens is really good at doing something in particular, and ok at everything else. You might want to think more about your photography than your gear. If there is something lacking, is the answer getting more gear or more instruction?
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
tramsey wrote:
I'm not sure but this might be a little too much
Not if you really need a 1200-1700mm zoom - the last time this lens was deployed was during the coverage of the Paris terror attacks. If it were my I'd want a 20000-3000mm zoom.
Gene51 wrote:
Not if you really need a 1200-1700mm zoom - the last time this lens was deployed was during the coverage of the Paris terror attacks. If it were my I'd want a 20000-3000mm zoom.
I think my 18-300 is just about right. I can shoot most anything, close or at a distance and get good sharp photos. It suites me just fine, one lens.
clive hall wrote:
i would like to know how much is too much, or too little. i have it in mind to buy two other lens to go along with the 55mm lens that i already have with my camera. i am thinking of buying a 85mm, and a 55- 300mm telephoto zoom lens. would this be too much, or would either one of the two be good enough to go with what i already have.
You don't have enough lenses if there's a picture that you want to take but can't with the lenses you have.
You have too many lenses if you have a lens that you have no plans to use to take a particular picture.
You can both not have enough lenses and have too many lenses at the same time.
I'm leaning toward "not enough" because you don't have anything wider than normal, but that just could mean you don't like wide angle (e.g. landscape).
But it could be too many, because it's not clear you have any idea what to shoot with the lenses you're considering.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.