CCC Forum

Over at The Online Photographer, there is an ongoing debate about lenses. It started with a proposal for having two lenses, one a zoom and the other a fast prime within the focal length range covered by the zoom. A nested kit, the auhor (Mike Johnston) calls it.

This is the link to the first post in the series - http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... s-kit.html.

Now Mike Johnston is asking how many lenses people really want. If I answer that question in terms of need, a reasonably fast zoom lens with the full frame equivalent of 28-90 covers the majority of my uses. On my Canon 7D, that is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-s. On my Fuji-X system, the role is taken by the 18-55 f/2.8-4 "kit" lens. Both are excellent sharp lenses and image stabilised, which adds to their utility. When I did my 365 project in 2013, most shots were with the Canon 17-55. Nowadays, it is usually the 18-55 on my Fuji X-E2 when I am out and about. It is a more compact combo compared to the Canon, with the only real penalty in most circumstances being the loss of a stop at the long end. I do, though, sometimes have to take account of the AF on the Fuji which is not always accurate and slower to respond.

This is Johnston's post on the subject: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... right.html.

When the question becomes how many lenses that I want, the answer becomes vastly different. I still have practically every lens I ever bought and inherited some others from my Dad. That gives me a head start, but I have recently added one or two lenses which were first on sale during the heyday of film. Quite a few are "classic" manual focus lenses, which allows me to scratch an itch to find out how the rendering of older lenses compares to newer ones. Mirrorless cameras have transformed the ease with which manual lenses can be focussed. Most do surprisingly well and one of my shots with a vintage lens manufactured in 1982 scored full marks in the last DPI competition. That is going to be the subject of a blog post I intend to write when I have a moment.

Which lenses do others find most useful?

I can two lens with me. 15-55mm and the 50-240mm. I get quite frustrated at having to pop in and off lens when I want to play between 30-60mm zoom. So my ideal lens would cover 17mm wide angle to over a 100mm. This my 80 per cent lens. Upside it does exist. Downside it’s really expensive.

Sarahrs wrote:my ideal lens would cover 17mm wide angle to over a 100mm. Upside it does exist. Downside it’s really expensive.

What is the lens? That is quite a range and having both wide-angle and telephoto in the same lens is optically very challenging for designers. Having a second body might not only be cheaper but also more convenient, not to mention image quality will likely be better. The only downside would be having to carry the additional weight of another body.

This is Fuji lens I mentioned: https://www.jessops.com/p/fujifilm/xf-18-135mm-f-3-5-5-6-r-lm-ois-wr-lens-93834?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5KTI6dGH2QIVK5PtCh3L1A6hEAQYASABEgIU9fD_BwE

Sarahrs wrote:This is Fuji lens I mentioned: https://www.jessops.com/p/fujifilm/xf-18-135mm-f-3-5-5-6-r-lm-ois-wr-lens-93834?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5KTI6dGH2QIVK5PtCh3L1A6hEAQYASABEgIU9fD_BwE

OK, I did wonder. Going as it does from wide-angle to telephoto, that lens definitely suffers from the optical design challenges I mentioned earlier. I can see its attraction but in terms of image quality it is probably the worst performer in Fuji's line-up and not especially quick. At the short end, it has a full frame focal length equivalent of 27 which I find is sometimes not quite wide enough. In terms of image quality and compactness, the usefulness of Fuji's 18-55 "kit" zoom is hard to beat. I am not certain that the bigger and more expensive 16-55 f/2.8 is really any better. It lacks image stabilisation, although it does have a constant aperture and is slightly wider at the short end. That's certainly what Photozone was suggesting in its review.

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/971-fuji1655f28?start=2

Perhaps the best "do it all" lens at the moment is the Olympus 12-100 f/4. With the m43 2x crop factor, that is a full frame equivalent of 24-200 which should cover most purposes. With the smaller m43 sensor and relatively slow maximum aperture, it might not suit those who like having a limited depth of field, though.

http://www.photozone.de/m43/1006_olympu ... ro?start=2

One of my reasons for buying into the Fuji system is that it has a number of excellent lenses which are small and lightweight, especially when compared to my Canon DSLR kit. I started with the 18 f/2 and the incredibly sharp 27 f/2.8. Not that I wanted them but because they came in a good value bundle with the X-Pro1. Fuji was selling off excess inventory and the price* I paid was less than the combined cost if I had bought them individually. Having been long been intrigued by the different approach Fuji was taking, it was an offer which was too attractive to pass up. I reckoned I could try the system and sell the gear on with little or no financial penalty if I did not like it.**

It turned out that the results from the X-Pro1 were a revelation but the two lenses were a bit limiting and too close in focal length. When I had the opportunity, I took advantage of a good price on the 18-55 f/2.8-4. The X-Pro1 also has limitations but then a cheaply priced X-E2 came my way. While far from perfect, it addressed most of the more serious shortcomings of the X-Pro1. The X-E2 and 18-55 combination covers the majority of situations I encounter and gives good image quality from a compact and light package. It has accounted for most of my recent photographs.

Then the rot set in. Mainly aided and abetted by the various offers Fuji has had which were enhanced by events such as Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Fuji has some seriously good lenses which can be difficult to pass up when the price is sufficiently attractive. Mostly being primes, they can slip into a camera bag unnoticed without taking up too much space or adding excess weight. Then I bought the 50-140 f/2.8. An outstanding lens which I often shoot wide open, but oh my it is a lump. When it is in the camera bag, boy do I know it. What makes it worse is that I only need it for a relatively few shots so carrying is a big decision.

My strategy these days is to adapt to circumstances. I no longer carry all my gear just in case. If I am mainly walking around and travelling by public transport, I base my kit around the X-E2 and 18-55. Sometimes I add the X-Pro1 with a 23 f/1.4 attached*** if I do not want the hassle of swapping lenses. What ends up in my bag depends on what I think I will be shooting. Occasionally I bite the bullet and take the 50-140 but an ancient manual focus Vivitar 70-150 f/3.8 works nearly as well yet is smaller and lighter. My back thanks me for it.

A few years ago I was in the Lake District and I pared down my kit before setting out for the day. Then, inevitably, found that I needed something I had left behind. I kicked myself. Why? I was travelling by car. Doh! So now I have two camera bags. One for carrying and the other to hold what I will not be using immediately. I can mix and match as required from the boot of the car.

* If I had waited, Fuji ended up reducing the price of the package much further. As it was, I paid what the two lenses would have cost, essentially making the camera free. It was an incredible bargain and not one I expect to see repeated. One lives in hope, though.

** That assumes I would be prepared to let some camera kit actually go. Gear can be addictive.

*** The AF on the X-Pro1 was never a strong point but can be strange. Some lenses focus reasonably quickly but others, even those which came out when the camera was still current, can hunt for ages before the focus settles. Or just gives up entirely.