[L33tGreg]

Thanks greg, so is magic worth more or useful fl worth more?

I'd get the 21. I use it twice as often and it's cheaper. You can't go wrong with either.

[br.davidson]

My primes are 15, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, and 77/1.8. The gaps are irrelevant and even the 50mm is starting to feel unnecessary. Switching lenses a lot sucks, but when you are "stuck" with a certain focal length on the camera you can end up with much more creative results. If you're using anything in the 24-55mm range on APS-C, then there won't be many shots you'll miss due to the wrong focal length. The 35/2.8 macro is usually all I need to bring. In the telephoto range, I think the 55-300 or some other zoom would still be pretty handy.

[les3547]

My primes are 15, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, and 77/1.8. The gaps are irrelevant and even the 50mm is starting to feel unnecessary. Switching lenses a lot sucks, but when you are "stuck" with a certain focal length on the camera you can end up with much more creative results. If you're using anything in the 24-55mm range on APS-C, then there won't be many shots you'll miss due to the wrong focal length. The 35/2.8 macro is usually all I need to bring. In the telephoto range, I think the 55-300 or some other zoom would still be pretty handy.

I think I agree with you about the "gaps." I have lenses at 20mm, 28mm, 40mm, 58mm and 90mm, and I just sold my 75mm because I wasn't using it. After I wrote out the questions for this thread, I remembered I used to get by with just a 50/1.4 lens (on a full frame camera) many years ago. It's funny how writing out a concern often answers one's own questions. Yesterday I took my Voigtlander 40 F2 lens out for a spin. It's FOV is a bit longer than a 50mm on a FF, but its versatility gave me the same feeling as the 50mm used to. It's a tiny, lightweight lens too, and with the best IQ I've ever seen on a pancake-like lens. I'm thinking it will make a great walk about lens.

[br.davidson]

I just looked up that Voigtlander 40 F2 and it's a beauty.

[emalvick]

I don't have an all-prime kit by any means although I do practice a lens of the day strategy with the primes I have to keep them being used. I also contemplate the idea of going prime only. If I did, I think my temptation would be to go with a fewer is better approach. The idea would be that shooting wider than you really want isn't going to hurt much given the resolution of today's cameras. I can get away with shooting a wide shot and then crop it (within reason) to get the shot I may have been missing due to an all prime approach. Does anyone do something like that?

As an extreme example, I've considered a kit that would probably be on the order of a 20 mm, 35 mm, 75 mm, 135 mm, and perhaps a 200 mm. I'm just throwing numbers out as I already have a 50 mm and 28 mm. Never-the-less, if I had ended up in a spot where I wanted a 50 mm type shot but I was stuck with only a 35mm and 75mm, would shooting the 35 mm and then cropping the results be reasonable? This is assuming that you have exhausted your limits of movement. Or, perhaps you use the 75 mm to shoot a couple of shots and stitch them panorama fashion to get an image.

I think would think either of these methods is reasonable except if it became a habit... i.e. if I was always wanting that 50 mm type shot, then I'd be better off selling one of the other lenses and getting the 50 mm.

Anyway, I think I rambled a bit here, but if I went all prime, I'd like to be able to keep the total kit weight similar than would have with my zoom kit, and that would mean still relying on only a handful of lenses and not necessarily 3 or 4 per zoom lens. I have a feeling I'd start wide, too as the 55-300 mm covers a lot of ground and even one prime out towards the 200 to 300 range can weigh in as much as the 55-300 (or more). I'll also probably want more AF glass as my primes are all MF. Nothing wrong with MF, but the primary reason I have my zooms is the AF not so much the zoom. I pretty much shoot all my zooms at their extremes except the 55-300, which gets used most around 200 mm.

[br.davidson]

As an extreme example, I've considered a kit that would probably be on the order of a 20 mm, 35 mm, 75 mm, 135 mm, and perhaps a 200 mm

For me, anything above about 75mm is a lot easier as a zoom. I love primes below that focal length, but anything longer and the subjects are usually so far away that zooming with my feet is impossible or unpleasant. And, as you mentioned, longer primes lose their size and weight advantages.

[Bob from Aus]

I have five (or is it 6) primes between 10mm and 50mm. My 21Ltd is on the camera 70% of the time. As it has panned out, the 21 Ltd is my standard lens and I use one of the others when I want something different.

[emalvick]

I have five (or is it 6) primes between 10mm and 50mm. My 21Ltd is on the camera 70% of the time. As it has panned out, the 21 Ltd is my standard lens and I use one of the others when I want something different.

For me, I think I'd hope to cut that range down to 3 lenses, especially since I don't think I'd ever go as low as 10 mm (15mm would be my low lens). If I could do that and keep the 55-300 for everything + 50 (although I always want one of those fantastic 70 to 80 mm primes that keep getting shown off), I'd only have one more lens than my current travel (zoom) kit (10-24, 17-50, 55-300).

This thread actually makes this sound more practical than I had thought... I'll have to blame you all for my next round of LBA.

[twitch]

My tip for a prime kit is that your thinking needs to change, or at least mine did.

I use primes and I tend to decide what kind of photos I want for a given situation before walking in. Do I want pics of people interacting? Do I want photos taken from in close or from a distance? Do I want portraits; h&s, half, full? Maybe Group shots? Shots of people by themselves but doing things? Over the shoulder style shots? Thin DOF environment shots? Thin DOF portraits? People in landscapes with lots of DOF? Etc etc etc.

The kind of photos I want then indicates which prime to use. I then put that prime on and shoot shoot shoot to get the photos that that lens can give. If I want shots of 2 people interacting taken from 2 or 3 meters away, then I’ll put say a FA31 on and not worry about shooting thin DOF h&s portraits or establishing shots or landscapes. I look only for shots that I know a FA31 can give me given that lens’ strengths and weakness. If I want “over the shoulder” shots I’ll put on a FA50. Establishing, group or people in environment shots a DA21. Portraits a FA77. Etc.

At any point in time, from any position, there are almost an infinite number of photo possibilities whether you have a prime or a zoom on your camera. The advantage of using primes is you will be more intentional with what you want to capture and your eye will know exactly what it is looking for and you will position yourself to have a better chance to capture one of the many “decisive moments”. With a zoom, especially something like a 18-135, you don't know what the hell you want to capture or are even looking for.

[les3547]

With a zoom, especially something like a 18-135, you don't know what the hell you want to capture or are even looking for.

Thanks for your thoughts. What you said in the last sentence characterizes another thing I often felt using zooms, a sort of loss of clarity about what I wanted to do.

[Frogfish]

I can't believe you sold the VL 75 Les !! I'd have kept it just to keep the LBA hunger at bay

As others have said you are already an accomplished shooter so I'm not sure what advice we can give to help - i'd have thought it'd be the other way around

I usually pick my kit for the day based on what I expect to shoot, the problem with that is a) I always take too many lenses anyway and b) each lens has multiple possibilities/strengths.

However that said I usually use lenses for a specific purpose, the Cosina 55/1.2 for it's OOF bokeh rendering and low DoF (90% time used at f1.2), the 77 Ltd for 1/2 body & head portraits (sometimes the Zeiss 85 especially if I'm looking for f1.4 isolation) and occasionally 3/4 body, the Sigma 30/1.4 for street scenes (inc. wide open for detail), the Zeiss 28/2.8 for landscapes (and stitch if required - which it usually is), the DA*300 for butterflies, dragons & damsels (and of course birding, though it also makes a superb portrait lens if you can't get close enough for the 77), the Sigma 10-20 for house interiors (used almost exclusively at 10mm so does that count ) and the15 Ltd for cityscapes, woodscapes and landscapes that include strong foreground features. For private events/parties it is the 43 Ltd & 77 Ltd combo. Come to think of it most of my primes have a specific purpose 90% of the time.

When it comes to aperture they can easily be divided into those that are used almost exclusively at or around a certain aperture and those that vary depending on the situation / ambient light. Fast lenses (under f2.0) are almost always used wide open or close to it !

I have no idea whether any of this is of any value at all !

[MSL]

Thanks for your thoughts. What you said in the last sentence characterizes another thing I often felt using zooms, a sort of loss of clarity about what I wanted to do.

I've been following this thread with interest. Back in my film days I had two lenses for my Minolta - a 50/1.7 and a relatively fast 75-200/2.8-3.5 zoom. It was an easy choice as to which lens - the 50 for anything indoors or low light, the zoom for anything where my legs weren't going to be able to get me where I wanted to go.

Having been on this forum for a while, I was infected with LBA and now have all sorts of not great glass that I mostly will try to resell, and I'm thinking what sort of lenses I should be buying. But I have to laugh when I think of how many lenses I now own (since I only bought my Pentax in January) compared to what I survived with before. Maybe I'll actually figure out what I NEED once I have more time to shoot (sigh). At least I've only bought lenses on the cheap, and don't have the budget for an unhealthy case of LBA. But one of these days I'll get a 70/90/100 mm macro, and maybe something to push past the 210mm limit - although at that end there doesn't seem to be much advantage to shooting primes vs zooms.

[JimJohnson]

good stuff in this thread - I'll add a simple one - wear sturdy shoes that you don't mind being scuffed. With your eye to the viewfinder, you may not notice what you are stepping in or on, or about to trip over.

[les3547]

Thanks everyone for your tips and insights, keep 'em coming!

I can't believe you sold the VL 75 Les !! I'd have kept it just to keep the LBA hunger at bay

I know. Another shocker, I sold the Voigtlander 180 too. I had $2000 wrapped up in it and the 75 but wasn't using them (whereas my music system, which is where the money went, I use every day). I also grew discontented with the Voigtlander SL I's stiff focusing ring. The SL IIs are so much smoother and easy to use.

Part of what got me going this way was realizing the difference between my determination to collect every Voigtlander/Zeiss/Limited lens or cover every conceivable focal length, and having my focus strictly on learning to take better pictures. With LBA and NCL (new camera lust) my focus is too much on acquiring and owning new stuff (which is exciting of course, but not necessarily useful to developing new skills).

I usually pick my kit for the day based on what I expect to shoot, the problem with that is a) I always take too many lenses anyway and b) each lens has multiple possibilities/strengths.

Same here. So I looked at which lenses I turn to most of the time and it was the Voigtlanders 20, 40, 58, 90 and the Contax/Zeiss 28. Also, I really love those lenses, each one is a little treasure to me, so with a kit like that I feel total confidence in my equipment and therefore can focus on photography.

However that said I usually use lenses for a specific purpose, the Cosina 55/1.2 for it's OOF bokeh rendering and low DoF (90% time used at f1.2), the 77 Ltd for 1/2 body & head portraits (sometimes the Zeiss 85 especially if I'm looking for f1.4 isolation) and occasionally 3/4 body, the Sigma 30/1.4 for street scenes (inc. wide open for detail), the Zeiss 28/2.8 for landscapes (and stitch if required - which it usually is), the DA*300 for butterflies, dragons & damsels (and of course birding, though it also makes a superb portrait lens if you can't get close enough for the 77), the Sigma 10-20 for house interiors (used almost exclusively at 10mm so does that count ) and the15 Ltd for cityscapes, woodscapes and landscapes that include strong foreground features. For private events/parties it is the 43 Ltd & 77 Ltd combo. Come to think of it most of my primes have a specific purpose 90% of the time.

When it comes to aperture they can easily be divided into those that are used almost exclusively at or around a certain aperture and those that vary depending on the situation / ambient light. Fast lenses (under f2.0) are almost always used wide open or close to it!

Well, here's where I think the source of my worry was when I posted the thread. For all of one's "specific purposes" you have a lot of options. My thoughts were, can I do it with five first-rate lenses, plus the DA 55-300 for my somewhat rare longer telephoto needs? As several people have pointed out, it does force me to think about visualizing and positioning more, which for me involves me more in the photographic experience (as does manual focusing).

I have no idea whether any of this is of any value at all !

It's just what I'm looking for. Awhile back I started a thread that was something like "share your lens kit logic" where I wanted to know people's thinking behind lens choices. Of course, some of the choice is skewed by LBA, which doesn't say anything about how one's kit serves photographic purposes.

Considering how my kit logic has shaped things, I have speed with the VL 58/1.4 and the VL 40/2, and decent speed with the CZ 28/2.8. I have close focus or macro with the VL 90 (actually, most of VLs allow for pretty close focus). I have a "normal" lens with the CZ 28. All have hard-to-beat IQ. I have better than average IQ (IMHO) for longer telephoto with the DA 55-300. And all of them are lightweight and compact, yet (excluding the DA 55-300) with all-metal sturdiness.

[br.davidson]

I have speed with the VL 58/1.4 and the VL 40/2, and decent speed with the CZ 28/2.8

As MF lenses, how do these compare with old (and inexpensive ) Pentax K or M primes? I have the M 50/1.7 (worth about $30 I think) and I think it's almost flawless, especially if you consider the price.