radiojohn

I've owned all kinds of SLRs since the screw-mount 70's kits of a 50mm, 28mm and 135mm and a bag to carry them. But at the same time, I also enjoyed "Leica inspired" rangefinders as well as a couple of the real things. Not shooting sports or animals, I usually got by well in the 28mm to lens 105mm range.

Recently I sold off a couple of DSLR bodies and lenses with the idea of getting a smaller "mirrorless" outfit. But I also picked up a refurb Fuji X-10 and a used Powershot G-12. I like them both and am quizzing myself on the pros and cons of being happy with what I have until something really ground-breaking comes along. BTW, video is not a big concern.

I'd be curious to know what focal lengths you use the most and for what.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

For reasons of clarity, I will consistently use "35mm equivalents" in this response.

My first adjustable camera was a Yashica rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens that I got in 1969. In 1979 I got a Pentax SLR kitted with a 50mm lens. My real "eureka" moment came in 1995 when I got a Canon AF camera kitted with a 28-80mm lens; this was my first zoom lens in "normal" territory, and for the first time I could uncouple perspective and framing. When I went digital in 2007, it was with a Canon Compact camera with a 3X lens; I don't remember the focal lengths, because that is one of the few cameras I've labeled a "failure" - I used it for just nine months. Most of the pictures I take are in the range 30mm-80mm, but perhaps 10% are in UWA territory and 10% in telephoto territory. I don't need anything "ground-breaking". I am tempted by the new Pentax KP with its very high ISO values, but honestly my 2012-model Pentax K-30, with 15-30 {mostly tight landscapes, such as swamps, and museums}, 27-200, and 80-450 {mostly wildlife} lenses is adequate for most of what I do. However, I have tried the fixed lens option and found it to be seriously lacking.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

My main lense is a 28-108mm f2.8/3.5 equivalent. It covers my general photography and most of our travel photography. This can cover between 85% and 95% of my wife's and my photography depending what is being shot. The next important lense is the 14-28mm f2.8 equivalent. This covers interiors, narrow tight areas, and some landscapes. My last lense of importance is a 100-400mm f2.8/3.5 equivalent. This covers distance shots, landscapes, subject isolation, and wild life shots. Add 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters, a 180mm f2 equivalent macro lense, and flash, and one is basically ready to go anywhere and be capable of taking +99% or more of the pictures there; one has an exceptional system with this.

Athough there are high end P&Ss and other bridge cameras that can cover the same or simular range, they cannot cover the range with the same quality. Whether or not it is for personal only shots or money shots, there will be a difference between adequate quality and excellent quality. Settle for adequate quality only until one can afford excellent quality. If one never reaches that point of affording better quality, one should work with what they have and make the best photo they can out of that quality.

You seem to be happy with what you have now. I would wait for that one camera that you feel, not someone else feels, has that breakthrough camera technologies you that you want or need. One should always try to be happy with what they have now.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Me, yep, long history of 35mm, best was a Beltica-Dresden [German http://retinarescue.com/beltica.html ] folding 35mm pocket camera .. all things adjustable. Fit in my Class A army uniform with little bulge. I have the typical 40# back pack of Sony DMLR [M for Multi], but my 24/7 pocket camera is a Sony HX50, always with me .... "time waits for no man" ... well neither does the of the moment happening that we see and can photograph. With up to 50X lens that is quite a grab.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot long lenses. Mirrorless still do not have much of a selection for me. Maybe down the road. In addition, I find a long lens on a mirrorless camera to be front heavy, not balanced for MY use. YET.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot long lenses. Mirrorless still do not have much of a selection for me. Maybe down the road. In addition, I find a long lens on a mirrorless camera to be front heavy, not balanced for MY use. YET.

BebuLamar

Don't understand your question though.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

the confusion is in the title. the real question was about your favorite focal lengths. mine would be 16-80mm and 70-300mm. the more you know, the more you think you need.

Retired fat guy with a camera Loc: Colorado

When I take off with my cameras, I have a 300 mm L. on my 1D Mark lll. On my Mark lll 1Ds, I have a 24-105 mm L. You might have noticed, I like 1D bodies. They may be older but they were, and still are pro bodies.
I always take my other lenses as well. A 70-200 mm L, a old 100-300 mm L and a 50 mm.
The 100-300 L is a older, out of favor lens. It was my first L. You can find them on ebay for under 300 dollars. It is tack sharp, and it can shot in a macro mode. It may not be my first choice for a lens, but I love it and it will stay in my bag.

radiojohn

"I have tried the fixed lens option and found it to be seriously lacking." I'd like to hear what lacked what, thanks!

radiojohn

The trick is that if you have a favorite focal length, and that favorite length is available in a qualty lens (or simply one you are happy with) in a non-SLR, is the SLR needed? Plenty of street photographers, etc., used Leicas and 35mm lenses.

radiojohn

My question implies that, just as was the case when film cameras were used a lot, some photographers found a lens on a quality rangefinder, etc., that they used and never bought an SLR. (There were also considerations of viewfinder black-out, vibration, noise, and mirror-slap.)

I am thinking through the few times I ever need to shoot past 100mm (35mm eqiv) and if that means I am wasting money and weight buying something in the DSLR range, only to set the new lens at 100mm.

Nikonman44

i have a full cadre of cameras and lens. all my cameras are nikon.

the most useful lens I have is the 16 to 300. It pretty well does all I want.

its an easy single lens selection and other than when I need the 1.8 2.8 lighting the 4.5 seems to work about 99% of time .

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

We seem to be fixated on a camera/lens combination that works like our eyes when we turn our head from side to side and adds a telescope to replace our feet. I envision the future camera being one of those goggle headsets you see that projects virtual reality - look, think, snap.

Quinn 4

I like lens in the 50mm to 105mm ranger. For long ranger I have a Kalimar 500mm mirror lens and a Cosina 100 to 500mm lens and Canon 100-200mm/ Canon 300mm lens. Converter 2X. Lately I am using the long ranger lens for getting pictures of animals show up in my back yard. I have a 28mm lenses for closed up work in doors.