There is one thing that constantly keeps cropping up in both my own work, and in the work of others I see around me. I've worked with more and more photographers and videographers lately who just shoot with a single zoom for most of what they do. So many people I see seem to be producing strong work with one decent zoom. This post asks a very simple question that keeps bouncing around in my head. "Just how many lenses do we actually need?".
I know some photographers need an abundance of different (and sometimes specialist) glass for different reasons. Architectural photographers like fellow Fstoppers writer Mike Kelley rely on specialist tilt shift lenses to achieve the work he does. For beauty of macro work, you'll certainly want a decent macro lens. But how many of us can get by with just a decent wide to medium zoom, or spend most of our time shooting just one focal length on a single prime for head shots or portraits?
The question has popped up constantly in my head the last few months in particular as I’ve seen great work coming from people who I know are only shooting with just one zoom, or where 95-99% of all their work is being shot with a single zoom.
If it’s about the extra stops of light a f1.2, 1.4 or f2.8 can give us over a f2.8 or f4 zoom lens gives us, we can bump ISO. Sure, it's not as "clean" as opening our aperture, but with most of the sensors we have in our pro bodies today, grain and noise isn’t so much an issue as it used to be even a year ago. Noise reduction software can help with this too, if a totally clean digital file is what you’re looking for. As hardware and software advances allow us to both shoot with improved light sensitivity parameters, or reduce the digital artifacts we get when we do so, is the benefit of having additional light stops through a wider aperture on a prime a significant investment over a zoom? When we're in a studio shooting strobes, are we even doing much shooting at apertures that are totally wide open anyway?
One Lens Wonder?
The lens I consistently see people using is either a 24-70mm (my go-to zoom) or 24-105mm on a full frame body.
A couple of examples where I’ve seen these lenses used recently which has got me thinking about this bigger question:
1). Last month I worked with fashion and advertising photographer Louis Christopher on a personal project. Louis has a client and publication list that any one of us would be proud to have under our belt. Louis shot 10 models consecutively over the course of a day, never once changing his lens from his 24-105. The majority of his shots hovered around the 40mm range, occasionally a little wider, sometimes tighter, but much of his work was in this focal length. He produced beautiful images straight out of camera, that wouldn't have looked out of place in Harpers or a campaign. Much of his work is shot with this zoom lens.
2). Erik Madigan Heck, an internationally exhibited photographer who has shot for TIME, The New Yorker, Harpers Bazar, W and renowned commercial clients like Kenzo and Alexander McQueen has an even more bizarre one lens story. Apparently he not only uses just the one lens, but it’s the same lens his mother gave him when he was 14. Erik actually attests some of what makes his work unique is probably due to the fact the decade-and-a-half old lens “was probably dropped. My assumption is that if I opened it up, something would be cracked in it, creating a small light leak.”
Erik's lens - 15 years old, a 24-105mm zoom given to him by his mother. Image courtesy of Jeff Brown for WSJ.com
3). Jennifer Massaux is a friend and photographer, videographer and video editor. She hasn't been shooting for many years, but has put together a strong body of work that has already seen her collaborating with Madonna.
Although Jennifer occasionally switches to a 35mm prime, I would say 95% of the stills and motion work I’ve seen her shoot is with her 24-105mm lens. This gives her the flexibility to quickly shoot wider and tighter shots, and provides the flexibility she needs as she often is shooting stills and video back to back with the same body.
4). Finally, on a personal note, looking back through my EXIF data to check my focal lengths and knowing what my videos look like, I realize I tend to shoot 90% of everything with my 24-70mm f2.8 zoom. This goes for events, concerts, portraits, fashion and BTS work. For video, the 24-70mm is my go-to lens and again accounts for about 80-90% of all of my shots. I'll occasionally switch to a longer zoom but I find it will often be just for a particular shot I feel will be useful to add to the story. I generally find the wider to medium/close shots are where most of my work is shot as it looks the most "normal" for the work I do.
Final Thoughts
I know the images I get aren’t as sharp as they would be if using a prime, and I can’t get separation, the extra stops of light and bokeh like I can out of my 50mm prime (which I find I use less and less these days, apart from on the street), but after seeing a client display an image I shot with it at almost life size scale (6ft on the longest edge), it’s amazing how clear and sharp the images are that you can get out of a good zoom with a minor bit of post sharpening and clean up.
Yes, different photographers use different lenses and some will require specialist tools for the job at hand, I don't disagree with that. The point of this post is really to begin a discussion about just how many lenses do we need to get the job done to the standard a client is looking for for more straight forward shoots that don't require specialist gear.
I've never had a client look at bokeh or sharpness and ask if I shot it with a prime or a zoom. Clients only care if the overall image or video speaks to them, to the brief, and delivers the message that I was hired to deliver.
We’re consistently told zooms aren’t as sharp as primes. This is most times true, but I would argue the sharpness i get from my Canon 70-200 is sharp enough. If good (or sharp) enough is really the benchmark our end client cares about, do we actually need something to be sharper?
Let us know how many lenses you have and what you use them all for. Do you find you do the majority of your work on just one lens? What percentage of your work is accomplished with just a decent zoom? I'd be interested to know.
Erik Madigan Heck photos via [WSJ.com]
Erik Madigan Heck lens photo courtesy of Jeff Brown from [WSJ.com]
Almost everyone that is into photography for a while has a lens that use 80-90% of the time.
The problem is: do you really wanna miss that 20-10%?
My 24-70 has got the job done solo for a few years now - a 70-200 is starting to become a necessity for some jobs so is next up. There are other lenses I'd love to own for myself, the 24-70 does almost anything I ask from it very nicely ...
For personal work, i've just been using an x100s. 24mm on a crop sensor for a 35mm FF field of view. I just try to think through my image and make it work.
For skateboard photography, I like having a fisheye and a 17-40. I could get by with just the 17-40 but like having the fisheye for the distortion and FOV for certain shots.
In my opinion lenses like the 24-105mm lens are making you really lazy. You can shoot from every position you want and just "zoom your way in". Because so many people are shooting like this the pics/videos look flat and usual.
I nearly only use the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm to give an "extreme" or non common used look.
These shots are the ones who are telling stories and surprise/entertain the viewer the most.
When I am not on tight timetables,shooting predictable situations, or I don't want to get noticed I am going with primes for the most freedom while shooting (weight/size/aperture).
I can't say I entirely agree, but you bring up an interesting point, one that could be taken one step further. What if you shoot with a prime and are forced to move around to get the right perspective for a shot? That would also physically put you in a new position that could give you a new perspective than you would just standing in X spot and zooming around.
I don't see a right or wrong to any of these three approaches, but it's food for thought.
Photos rely on quality of light, as long as you have quality light, you can use an 18-55 to get billboard quality photos. An 85 1.4 is all a portrait photographer needs, maybe even a 105 for close crop.
I love my 24-70 2.8 and it sprouts from my camera most of the time. It can handle low-light situations pretty well, is attractively warm and gives me wide angle options on the fly. It may not be super sharp but it's heavy duty and my best bet when walking around with my camera. I keep my 70-200 in my bag and really like it too, but for most of my shooting, having the wide angle resource matters more than using the telephoto focal length. My primes get less use, but I usually set my zooms to common focal lengths just to train for them...meanwhile, I don't usually carry them around anymore.
24-70 and the 70-200 are my staple lenses for work, and a 35L is my staple for snapshots.
Erik Madigan Heck is proof positive that you don't need to shoot only L glass to get great images.
Looking at his huge prints pretty much proved that to me.
I have a zeiss 50 that I use 80% of the time, a canon 24-70 10% and 70-200 10%.
Working as a freelance press photographer, I had about 12 lenses (+ some double ups of below) to cover my needs (14L, 15 fisheye, 35L, 45 TS-E, 85L, 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L, 300 2.8L, 400 2.8L, 500 f4L, 600 f4L) but I have since downgraded the number to 9 as they weren't all getting the use to warrant them. I now have some Sigma additions (18-35, 35, 50) and sold a couple of the super telephotos.
The 400 is my go to lens for anything sport related or if I'm stuck behind Police lines at a news event. Always have it with me on assignment as you never know when you'll need it.
The 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200's are in my 'basic kit' to cover most general news, feature stuff.
15mm fisheye and either the 35mm or 50mm Sigma (sold the Canon 35&85 for these two) for when I want to do some really nice or interesting shots.
Most of my work is shot on my 24-70mm Nikon and I usually keep it on 2.8. I very seldom take this lens off my camera body. My 50mm 1.4 is an absolute dream....but I don't often use it. I have recently ordered the 70-200 2.8, I am hoping it's going to be worth every cent I paid for it !!!
As a wedding cinematographer I find the 24-105 to work brilliantly on the C100 and that is my go-to lens for most of the day. However I do need the 11-16 for some ultra-wide establishing shots of venues. And the 70-200 for some nice tight shots of faces & details. Not to mention the 18-35 (sigma), 50mm & 85mm when there's not enough light.
You get the point :)
most of the time i'm using the new canon 24-70mm f/2.8 mk-ii and my 2nd lens is the 85mm f/1.8. its is light and doesn't get a lot of space in my bag.
90% of photos are done with 24-105mm f4 and 90% of video are done with 16-35mm f2.8 I have some other lenses, but go to these first!
Great post! I use my 24-70 mm 2.8 most of the time, too. :-)
I shoot 90% of my images on a 50mm f/1.4. (full frame) I have a variety of zoom lenses and they are for special use only. I use my 800-1300mm f/8 far more than I ever do my 28-120mm zoom. I guess after being used to working with the 50 I have gotten used to how it looks and using a regular zoom nothing feels quite the same. But I do not do fashion photography.
I'm still waiting for the day when somebody produces an 8-600mm f/1.4 lens.... that is pocket sized.
... and for the I-phone!
more and more my 24-70 sits on my D4 and more and more do my primes sit cozy in my Tenba. I sometimes force myself to hit the primes out of guilt for lack of use. don't get me wrong, for tight portraits I freaking love the 85 1.8.
Majority of the weddings I do are 90% 24-70, 5% 85 1,8 and the rest with 70-200. I can't, for the life of me figure out where would I need anything else. This of course, relates only to my style of shooting.
Now lighting is a diffrent matter. I carry 2 studio strobes and 3 flashes with me on every gig, along with a load of modifiers, gels and whatnot. My frriend is a professional videographer, doing mostly corporate. I doubt he has ever took off his 24-105 from his 5D III.
On my 5D III I have the 24-70, on my SL-1 a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If I ever I go to take pictures of lions or tigers, I will get a longer lens.
I believe in using the best tools for the occasion. I shoot fashion and beauty (for fun) and most of the time use the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2. It is my workhorse lens and is amazingly sharp. When I do headshots outdoors, it is the 200 f2 VR2 that I reach for because this dream-maker of a lens provides sharpness and separation like no other lens I know of. When I want to shoot wide-open with a mood to the images, it is the 85 f1.4 G that I use. And for walking about photography, I prefer a 35 f1.4 lens (currently the Sigma Art lens).
I don't use zooms but I found myself buying a ton of primes of different focal lengths...some used more than others. I ended up selling all of them and keeping 3 for my Panasonic gh4 which is my workhorse : a 17.5mm & 42.5mm f0.95 voigtlander and a 85mm asahi super takumar f1.9. I came to the conclusion that its not the amount of lenses you have but how you use them. I love the slight distortion of a wide angle lens especially when you used for vistas and dramatic low angle portraits so I stuck with the 35mm equivalent voigtlander. For portraits with shallow depth of field and a narrow angle of view I use the 85mm voigtlander and when I wanna be a creep and get closeups of people from far away I use the 85mm asahi takumar. These are 3 lenses in comparison to the 6 I used to own and Ironically enough I mainly use one and thats my 17.5mm voigtlander
I used to own the Canon 135 f2, but it hardly got used in our small studio. So I traded it and a 50mm f1.4 for the 100mm f2.8 macro II. So now, for most portrait work i use the 100mm & my 24-105 f4 40/40, and my 70-200 f2.8 II for the other 20% of the time.
I worked as a photojournalist back in the day, pre-autofocus, and made 90-per cent of my photos with a prime lens 80mm. on med format camera, and a 105mm lens on Nikon.
I shoot the majority of my work with either a 24 1.4, 35 1.4, or an 85 1.4 Nikon on D800. If I'm looking to really push to an unnatural perspective I will use my 14-24 2.8 but that is not the rule for me. The biggest reason that I use the primes over my zooms for my "real" shooting is that most lenses are at their best 1 - 2 stops from wide open and I like fast apertures. With the 1.4's I'm at my sharpest by 2.8 and still getting the bokeh i like while my 24-70 or 24-120 (both really nice lenses that I do like for certain situations) are not at their sharpest until around f/8. Some of my issue is style and some of it that i use my speedlights most of the time and that extra light gathering really helps. If I was shooting big high powered bloc's where f/8 was shot with ease maybe my mind would change but for me the combination of all those things means it's primes for me....
I wish they made a 24-105mm 2.8...heavy as it would be, that would be my one lens.
I mostly shoot performance based events and use a Nikon 17-55 2.8 for probably 85% of my shots, the other 20% of the time I use a Nikon 35 1.8G. While I can get away with this simple combo sometimes I feel like I need a. 70-200.
Great great article. I only shoot fast primes because, lets be honest, they're cheaper than fast zooms.
I have rented the Canon 24-70mm II and tried for an entire weekend (I swear I've never shot this many photos in my entire life before--within the three days I got it for I shot 1103 frames) And I have to say I have falling in love with this lens. Even though I do have the 70-200mm, which we know produces superior image quality, I would love to invest in this lens for the more wider shots. I currently use my 24-105mm for my everyday lens, however, I find that one more stop would definitely help with lower lighting situations. And when low light situation does present itself, I turn to my 50mm.
It all depends on how much cash you have laying around. No point in restricting you from buying a cool lens if you can afford it just to not hoard gear.
I know I did engineering school to finance my expensive hobby! haha
For a non professional photographer I end up with a surprising number of people using my photographic output. I'm a technical specialist in the weapons and ammunition world and I find myself with unique opportunities to take interesting pictures which I try to do.
I have a fairly good grasp of photography from a technical perspective but I lack any artistic flair (I shouldn't even be allowed to dress myself unsupervised). This added to the fact that often circumstances dictate my location or I just need to be discreet, results in me benefiting greatly, there and then, from the range offered by a good zoom and the choice of which zoom I'm going to use. The ability to rapidly respond to the circumstances offsets the luxury of a well stocked stable.
There is a previous comment regarding client opinion and I agree; none of my clients have ever commented on my lens/setting choice, they are generally just pleased to have a half decent picture that they can use for media release, advertising, website or just the back of the stall door. I overlap a little and have 16-35, 24-105 and 70-200 which gives me a nice range for uncertain circumstances and I can bump up the iso on the middle lens if I need extra light because everything cleans up in 'post' if I've under-achieved.
In order to answer Dave's question conclusively though......"Is one lens all we really need?"
No, I need one more lens than you... ;-)
I love the premise of this post. I work mostly in video and always love when a job restricts my choice of lens as I find out I work faster and smarter, but when I do live events am constantly swapping my primes is getting ridiculous hens why I will be getting the 24-105 to end all that nonesense. I know my favourite focal lengths are 35mm and 50mm and will shoot most of the time there but it helps to have the 24 - 105 range just in case.
I agree. So many photographers get GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), including me when I started. I don't have this type of zoom lens, so I hope it doesn't sound hypocritical, but you can get away with a lot less. When I started, I had 2 zoom lenses, the 18-55, and a 55-250. Over the years I bought and sold a lot of different lenses. Now, I love my 85mm lens for my portrait work, and for weddings, I'm either using my 20mm or my 70-200. (I technically own a 50mm, and it stays in my bag when when 70mm is too long, but it's rare I ever use it.)
If you handed me a high MP sensor camera and a 24-105, I could shoot everything I needed and it wouldn't be a terrible way to go. (Need the high MP to fake crop, make it look like 200mm, haha.)
I shoot mostly at 35mm or 50mm, and to take a 35 when just wandering and a 50 for events or city streets. 35 for outdoors, 50 indoors, etc.
With that in mind, a 24-70 (or even a 35-70) zoom would cover everything I need for 90% of my photography (I also like shooting flowers, bugs and other minutia as well as head-and-shoulder portraits with a 100 macro). Even adding macro and portraiture, I'd be a perfect candidate for a 24-105 that could theoretically cover everything I ever shoot.
Despite that, I shoot exclusively with primes. For my Leica kit I own 35 and 90mm fast Leica lenses and a number of vintage 50mm lenses that I enjoy for their optical flaws. For my Canon kit, I own the new 35mm f/1.4 L ii, 50mm f/1.2 L and the 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro. My assortment of primes is far more expensive, bulkier and heavier than a zoom lens, and modern zooms have similar quality, perhaps even better than the 50/1.2 which can be quite soft in the corners and has some wicked field curvature. Still, I wouldn't give up my primes.
Part of it is depth of field, part of it is bokeh, but mostly I just enjoy working in available darkness and there is just no substitute for a fast lens with low and interesting light. Depth of field and bokeh aside, an image shot with candlelight at f/1.2 or f/1.4 just looks different than one shot at f/2.8 even when the amount of light hitting the sensor or film is the same. Light dances through fast lenses wide-open.
I don't even worry much about which lens to take with me. If I don't know what I will be shooting or when photography isn't the focus of the trip, I just take a 35mm f/1.4, one camera body and go. If I know what I will do, I pick the appropriate lens and just understand that I might miss a shot or take a different shot for not having the ideal focal length available at the time, usually resulting in some interesting views. If its a dedicated photography trip or project, then a small bag with my three lens kit and possibly a second body (one with a 50 and the other with a 35) and I'm ready for anything.