The Holy Quest for the ultimate set of (D)SLR lenses seems to be really an eternal kind of question. Regardless of reasons why it is so, it seems an interesting thing to ponder. I used to think that more lenses is better just like a painter I thought would benefit from having various brushes - a special brush for each occasion. Currently the above idea seems quite incorrect to me. In fact, I tend to believe in rather opposite idea. The less lenses one has, the more completely one gets to know the lenses - the better the ultimate result is.
Currently I have more than a dozen lenses. I decided to sell at least half of them so that I will be left with my three favorite primes, one fast zoom and one (to be bought) super zoom lens in order to have wider and longer than regular focal lengths covered.
I wonder what honored reader would have to say.
Stepmother
1 month ago
1 comment:
Hi Boris,
I fail to see the contrast between having special lenses for each occasion and knowing your lenses intimately. How well you end up knowing your equipment depends on how often you use it and how critically you assess your results. Having fewer lenses just makes the process simpler by reducing the scope of occasions you study.
I do not believe you will be better off with a superzoom for this purpose. Look at any test done by any serious photo magazine! The optical qualities of these lenses vary with focal length. So instead of knowing half a dozen lenses intimately, you need to know how one single lens behaves at various focal lengths. I find it difficult to believe that this is any easier.
But a superzoom can be convenient because it covers more eventualities in one lens. If this is your ultimate need, your choice seems sensible.
Cheers,
Jostein
Post a Comment