[UserAccessDenied]

There have been plenty of threads here such as, "What's your favorite lens", "If you could only have three, what would they be", etc, etc.

I am actually thinking practically about this though.
I have never had a lot of gear, but even more so I am just trying to simplify my life. Less is more in my mind.

I have been shooting almost exclusively with my DA*300 and K-3ii lately. It's Spring and there's enough to keep me busy with that setup.

I have a 35mm macro, an 18-135, and an A 135mm F2.8.
All of these lenses I've listed on the marketplace to sell for an upcoming honeymoon that needs funds appropriated.

However, I am thinking how I want to fill my bag when I return. It may take a few months to slowly build up my quiver again, but I want to start planning now.

I'm keeping the DA*300, I'll likely never get rid of it.

But, if I were to get just two more lenses:
I have always wanted a 15mm f4 limited. So there's my wide angle covered...

I really do love the 35mm macro limited; I was considering re-purchasing the HD version this Fall (assuming I sell my current lens before the wedding in June.)

Am I crazy?
15/4, 35/2.8, 300/4

That would be my kit...

35mm-300mm is a big gap...
But I really love that 35ltd.

I'd love to get an FA77, but likely out of my budget seeing that I wouldn't be shooting with it too often.
I primarily am interested in wildlife, so if anything a 1.4xtc would better suit my photography "needs" (let's all be honest, they are desires!)

Should I consider the DA70?
Would I miss the 35ltd too much?


What do you think?
Obviously each photographer has their own style, their own preference.
The only thing I worry about is speed... My faster lens would be an f2.8 if I go this route.

Considerations if you would like to recommend two lenses instead:
AF preferred.
WR would be great, but not necessary (ie: 15/4, 35/2.8)
I'll likely never buy the K-1 so DA lenses are fine
Wildlife is primary subject, but "need" a wide angle for when it's suitable
Budget: $600-700 total


Cheers!
Looking forward to people calling me crazy or suggesting another route!

[MJSfoto1956]

No matter what your kit your photography will always "rise" to the occasion.
The best evidence of that is how many photographers still go out with a SINGLE lens: be it 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, whatever.
Heck, I often go out with just my DA*60-250mm as a "walk around" lens! (needless to say, I avoid anything "wide")

The good thing about having a limited kit is that your eye will start to "see" better.
As such, I recommend to my students to avoid those "all around" superzooms (e.g. 18-300mm) precisely because they don't encourage you how to "see" (i.e. superzoom make you lazy).

Back in the film days I got around with a three lens kit on my Mamiya 7ii: 50mm, 80mm, 150mm. I never "needed" anything else, even though I would have loved a much longer and/or wider lens. In the end 90% of my images were taken with just the 50mm and 80mm -- that was the sweet spot for that gear.

So no, you are not only NOT crazy but on the right track: less is more.

Michael

[tvdtvdtvd]

Crazy? No. But three primes could leave you with a big gap, as you've noticed, especially if you're range is 15-300mm.
Must it really be 3? How about 5? DA15, DA35/2.8(got your macro covered), DA70 or FA77, 135mm something & the DA*300.
No reason you would need to have all 5 with you at all times, but at least you won't be stuck wanting a portrait lens...

However, >if< you really want only three and >if< you really want the DA15 and DA*300, I'd suggest selling the DA35/2.8 and
getting the DFA 100mm macro. Not quite a universal lens to cover all your needs between those extremes, but more universal
than the 35mm.

Or, simply sell the zoom, (no brainer), keep the 35, 135 and 300. Three lenses! Then add or change as need.

[MadMathMind]

No, a 3-4 prime kit is what I use. I don't miss zooms and have developed an attitude of little use for them, with exception of a 70-200 and 70-210 I take out occasioanlly. That's not to disparage zooms or anyone who uses them but I find they make me lazy in composition. I had gotten by on a FA31, FA50, FA77 kit for a while but added a DA15 (which I have replaced with FA*24 for K-1) and swapped the FA50 with the FA43. I have found this kit to cover everything I need more than well enough.

I think you need something like an FA50 or DA70 to cover the massive gap between the 35 and 300. The times when a mild to moderate telephoto is needed is often enough to justify having one in the bag; both those lenses are quite light and not burdensome to carry around. In portrait photography, I take about 88% of my images with the FA31 and use it more than 60% of the time for my travel photos (I keep stats on both!) so you can definitely get away with the DA35 almost all the time.

[monochrome]

^^ In theory I subscribe to this philosophy, but I like old lenses - so I own too many. Consequently I mentally group them and associate them with one of my (far too many) cameras. I take only three primes and a medium zoom when I go out.

FWIW, the HD 70/2.4 is a stupid good lens and has recently been on sale (silver) at 52% discount.

[pathdoc]

Food for thought:

If you have a need for a wide-field* macro... hey, you have a need for a wide-field macro.

I discovered my (work-related) need for a wide-field macro many years after I bought the DA40/2.8 Limited; if I didn't have it already, I wouldn't have bought it alongside the DA35/2.8

The 15/4 has the advantage that the slide-out hood works with 49mm front filters, if that's what you like to do; the next up, the DA21, does not (because of the bayonet-mount nature of its quirky square hood) - plus that really is too close to the 35. In my opinion, the DA15 is not a people lens - the widest I would use (and have used) for that is 21mm on APS-C. 15mm minimises people, and it's fine if you want sweeping pictures of a crowd; not so fine if you want the subjects to retain their individuality (and closing in to do that tends to bring distortion issues). Out in the wild, it's great; my limited experience suggests great things if it ever stops raining where I am!!

I have quite happily taken people pictures with the 35mm focal length, and I will probably Single with the 35mm macro in July.

So I can certainly support your case for having those two and the long-ish tele. But it's a big jump up from 35mm to the DA*300, and only YOUR current and intended patterns of use can justify that gap.

If you do NOT need the macro capability and just want the focal length, consider the DA35/2.4 plastic fantastic - which is what I would do right now if I had neither the 35 Macro nor the 40 Limited and didn't need the macro function.

If you want a short tele prime and can't afford the FA77, consider the DA70 (even the SMC version), especially since you've indicated you're happy to stay in APS-C lens world for now. I strongly considered the 77 for film body and future K-1 use, but the K-1 hadn't yet firmed up with regard to price, features and release date - and with almost equivalent staff reviews, the savings I made from choosing the 70 instead allowed me to squeak in another lens within my particular budget at that particular time. (Whether I have made a mistake in the long run can be debated; with what I knew at the time, the K-1 was a when-my-K-5-dies proposition that was looking a long way off and mega-expensive when it happened, so the expansion of my DA lens set was eminently justified.)

ETA: The four posts above this one came out while I was gathering my thoughts, which is why this post doesn't reference their advice at all.

* = wider than the 50 or 100, at any rate

[julianbenjamin]

Have you looked at either the 16-45 F4 or 17-70 F4? I love my 16-45, and I also have a 35 f2.4, 50 f1.8 and the new 100mm macro. I am thinking of getting either a 200 f2.8 or the 60-250 F4, but that will probably be later this year. Those 4 lenses cover all my scenarios now (family events and some macro stuff).

[Driline]

No. You are not crazy. Currently my vacation gear consists of the following 3 primes.
DA 14
FA 31
F*300

I have been more than happy with this trio of lenses.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Heck, I often go out with just my DA*60-250mm as a "walk around" lens!

I recommend to my students to avoid those "all around" superzooms

But, But...

Student - "Mr. Foto, isn't 60-250 4/5 of a super zoom?"
Mr. Foto - "Shuddup kid."

[MJSfoto1956]

But, But...

Student - "Mr. Foto, isn't 60-250 4/5 of a super zoom?"
Mr. Foto - "Shuddup kid."

LOL! If a 90-380mm is your definition of superzoom then by all means. But most pundits describe a superzoom to mean wide to telephoto, which the DA* 60-250mm clearly is not. Besides, I don't have any problem "seeing" no matter what camera/lens you hand me, so yes, the master can be excused.

Michael

[tvdtvdtvd]

LOL! If a 90-380mm is your definition of superzoom then by all means. But most pundits describe a superzoom to mean wide to telephoto, which the DA* 60-250mm clearly is not. Besides, I don't have any problem "seeing" no matter what camera/lens you hand me, so yes, the master can be excused.

Michael

I've always taken the strict/arbitrary definition of a superzoom to be any zoom with factor of 5 or more.
So, 60-250 = 250/60 = 4.17 = 4/5+ of a superzoom. Certainly 18-300 is more 'super', but if the lesson
is to restrict the options, then 4/5 of a crutch is still a lot of crutch.

I'm just fielding a likely student response, as your order of presentation might have done. Master can
even go out with a 18-300, but that's only because the eye has been trained with a more restricted fair.

[wibbly]

if you spend so much time out in the wildlife i'd think the dfa 100mm f2.8 macro WR would be a good choice to fill the void. more reach than the 35 for interesting macros of stuff you find out there, WR for less than ideal weather, and at least some semblance to reach as well.

[MJSfoto1956]

I've always taken the strict/arbitrary definition of a superzoom to be any zoom with factor of 5 or more.
So, 60-250 = 250/60 = 4.17 = 4/5+ of a superzoom. Certainly 18-300 is more 'super', but if the lesson
is to restrict the options, then 4/5 of a crutch is still a lot of crutch.

I'm just fielding a likely student response, as your order of presentation might have done. Master can
even go out with a 18-300, but that's only because the eye has been trained with a more restricted fair.

This is fun -- so then a 70-200mm is 3/5 of a crutch? LOL!

Michael

[Driline]

if you spend so much time out in the wildlife i'd think the dfa 100mm f2.8 macro WR would be a good choice to fill the void. more reach than the 35 for interesting macros of stuff you find out there, WR for less than ideal weather, and at least some semblance to reach as well.

I like your stable of lenses in your signature. They blend much better to the white background than mine

Is that a panoramic shot?

[mattb123]

I often just have a body and 2 or 3 primes so I don't think so. I own more stuff but I don't usually bring much of it.
Just the 15 and 40 is a nice tiny kit.
I added a DA 70 so I had 15/40/70 which was nice and have since swapped the 70 for the 77.
I have the 15/40/77 kit with me most days for whatever comes up.

I also have a 300 that is great when I need something that long but that is more the exception for me.