There are amazing lenses available. It is tempting to buy a special lens, because it can open doors to a whole different kind of images. But there are lenses which you probably won’t need anytime soon. Here are six of them.
Just look in any random online shop, a real camera store, or on manufacturers' websites, and you can find almost every lens imaginable. For any type of photography, you probably will find a lens that works best. It is easy to order a new lens because someone is saying how well it performs for some kind of photography. If you shoot landscapes, you must buy a certain wide-angle lens. For portrait photography, a portrait lens with a large aperture is a must. You probably can find a lot of other examples.
I have listed six lenses that are wonderful pieces of engineering and can provide amazing results if you are in the market for them. It is tempting to buy one of these or even more than one. But these are lenses you probably won’t need anytime soon, if ever.
1. A Tilt-Shift Lens
Perhaps this kind of lens is the most amazing piece of engineering. It originates from the old large format technical cameras, which use bellows to manipulate the plane of focus. The tilt-shift lenses make this possible for normal cameras with relatively small sensors.
A tilt-shift lens, perfect for architecture and real estate.
The tilt-shift lenses for normal cameras have some limitations concerning the amount of tilt and shift you can have, but the lenses do make it possible to correct converging lines of large buildings or manipulate the plane of focus in a way to gain a large depth of field with a large aperture.
There are amazing tilt-shift lenses available, like the Canon TS-E collection, ranging from 17mm up to 135mm. Also, Nikon has some nice ones available, like the 19mm tilt-shift.
But, you don’t really need these lenses unless you do some real architectural photography or product photography. You might think real estate photographers also would use these a lot, but most of them don’t; I know from experience. With Photoshop, a lot of perspective correction is possible.
2. Super Macro Lens
We all love a nice macro photo — flowers, insects, mushrooms, you name it. But on a lot of occasions, these so-called macro photos don't even have a 1:1 magnification. With a macro lens, a 1:1 maginification is the maximum size you can get, and I bet most are not that much.
Super macro lenses can get really close, with magnifications up to five times and perhaps even more.
You can get even get a larger magnification. The Canon MP-E 65mm lens is a good example, reaching a 5:1 ratio, meaning it will enlarge the subject five times. A couple of other super-macro lenses are also on the market, like the strange Laowa Probe lens, making it possible to see the unseen.
But it is a completely different kind of photography that requires some real differentiation. I have shot some macro (not super macro), and one thing I have learned is how intensive this kind of photography can be. I believe some macro and near-macro is great, and it can be done with a regular macro lens. But on most occasions, you don’t need a super macro lens for that.
3. Fish-Eye Lens
A fish-eye lens has a field of view that is roughly 180°. There are different types of fish-eye lenses. Nikon even has a fish-eye that has a field of view that is larger than 180°. Can you imagine? That lens looks behind itself.
Look at me, shooting with a fish-eye lens. It was fun, but I got tired of the distortion very quickly (photo by Hetwie (http://www.hetwie.nl))
These fish-eye lenses seem great to use. But with almost everything in view, everything becomes really small, unless you get very close. In that case, some serious perspectives can occur. And don't forget the wide-angle distortion.
Although a fish-eye lens can be used for some great images, it is very difficult to use it in a good way. Often, it becomes a nice picture to look at, nothing more, nothing less. I know a lot of photographers that used one for some time, then left it at home eventually, or they even sold the lens.
4. Super Tele Lens With a Large Aperture
Yes, we all have seen the big white lenses of Canon and Sony. You can get a Nikon version if you like, but these are black and don’t stand out so much.
Regardless of the color, using super tele lenses, from 400mm up to an amazing 800mm or more, is all but practical, Especially when combined with large apertures like f/2.8 or f/4, these monsters are very heavy and not easy to carry with you. They are all but flexible in real life. Only a small group of photographers really need these lenses.
A wonderful beast: the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L lens. Very large and heavy, it is now returned to the rightful owner, I don't miss it at all. Well, almost.
If you love shooting with long lenses, you probably are better off with a nice 100-400mm or a 150-600mm zoom lens. These fit into your camera bag, are not that heavy, and are often flexible because of the zoom capability. And you will save yourself a lot of money.
5. Lens With an Extremely Large Aperture
There are lenses that are called bokeh monsters. It is a range of lenses that have apertures that are f/1.4 or wider. Some of them even go to f/0.95, which is amazing.
These lenses don’t need a lot of light and can be used in relatively dark environments. But at the same time, the depth of field will be small. Very small. Too small on a lot of occasions.
Focal length and distance to the subject will play a large part in the depth of field story, of course. But on most occasions, these very wide aperture lenses are not necessary, I think. Oh yes, you can play with a nice minimum depth of field and have smooth bokeh. But, I believe in most situations, you would rather stop down and have both eyes of the model in focus. If you need a nice, small depth of field, perhaps a longer focal length will be the answer.
Nevertheless, these lenses are very tempting, as seen from the previous article I wrote on this subject.
6. Lensbaby
I almost forgot about these babies. The Lensbaby is a strange little thing that is relatively popular among a lot of photographers. It works somewhat like the tilt of a tilt-shift lens.
But Lensbaby has more to offer. It is a lens for creative photography with flares and other things. Perhaps you should look into it if you are in the market for it. Although Lensbabies are not very expensive, they are expensive when you buy one and never use it.
Lensbaby: strange little lenses that produce strange results. You love them or you hate them.
Of the six lenses mentioned, the Lensbaby is probably the one you can try without spending a lot of money, but only if you like a strange and unexpected out of focus element in your photo. You love it or hate it.
To Sum Up
This article is not to prevent you from buying a lens, but to help you avoid buying something you don’t need. If you are one of the photographers that is a real target for one of these types of lenses, you will know. Or you will learn eventually. So, think twice before buying. Perhaps you will find out it is a lens you probably won’t need anytime soon, if ever.
I would like to know if you bought a special lens that is gathering dust. Or perhaps you can think of a lens that has a small niche and isn’t for a lot of people. Please share it in the comments below.
99% of my photos are taken with a Canon 600 F4 IS II. I do need it because most wildlife doesn't let you get that close or it's not safe to get that close and I don't want to crop if I don't have to. It's not that hard to handle or travel with, fits in my bag no problem and it's worth every penny.
Depends on what you are doing. I use tilt-shift lenses and macros all the time. In fact I make more than 75% of my income with them.
Fast aperture, long telephoto lenses unnecessary? Uh-huh. Don’t the wildlife & action sports pro photographers use them? The sales guy at the camera store said I needed 1 or 2 for each of my systems if I want to get published! Was he kidding?
For most people it is. I did not say everyone ;)
6 articles on fstoppers you probably don't need to read.
An yet you did... ;)
yes I read the title
That's all?
In that case I also should have stopped reding after the first four words of your comment
lol
When i went shooting a few days ago the eagle nest was across the river and up a tree and even with the 500mm and eve in dx mode the pictures needed to be highly cropped. Lenses that people shouldn't waste their money buying are these 35, 50, 80mm lenses.
The people who are using 35, 50, 85 would perhaps say a 500mm is nog necessarry ;)
I call bullshit on #5. Obviously the author is not experienced enough to fully understand the benefits of a large aperture lens and how to use the out of focus areas of a composition to his / her / its best.
Oh but I do understand, and I use f/1,4 and f/1,2 for almost a decade. But I also learned that most don't need it. Only a small group of photographers.
Where's the glorified kit kens, also known as 24-70 2.8? It's mediocre at everything..
It’s the workhorse for wedding photography and the like. It’s not mediocre at all - have you actually used one? Oh wait, it’s f1.4 or nothing right? Noob LOL
I Love love love 58mm f/0.95. Great future lays ahead of us. Once we come together, nobody, literally nobody, even Nando, couldn’t break our sacred bond.
I bought a super macro a few years back and I've hardly used it since... Completely agree with this
Hang on.........I'll PM my address;)
And here I am considering getting a tilt-shift lens.
If you need one, you should buy it. They're great if it is your kind of photography
When I am shooting with my DSLR, rather than with my Toyo 4x5, 9 times out of 10, I'm using one of my T/S lenses.
If a M4/3 600mm F.95 was released I would dedicate my life to weight lifting just to carry it. I like photographing wildlife while the sun is down or storm clouds are overhead a lot.
who did something with pinhole recently? ;-)
my 400 F2.8 and 600 F4 are my two most used lenses. I could live without my 50 or 80mm primes and just use the 24-70 F2.8.
You omitted "any fixed length lens". I purchased a wonderful 24mm lens. It was well-rated and tested to extreme sharpness. It stayed in my camera bag in favor of my 24-70 until I sold it. I still have a wonderful 50mm collecting dust.
2 out of 6 missing, as I don't have a super macro and neither a super tele. FD 85/1.2, second hand. A whole bunch of lensbabys. Same goes for tiltshifts (mostly second hand). A super wide FD 7.5mm/5.6 fisheye, second hand of course, my newest lens.
It's fun to shoot with special lenses, but I agree: I don't need them. I just love them.
Agree, but love my 85 f/1.4; thinking of getting the 105 f/1.4. Wish they had a f/1.2 either in 85 or 105. These fall in the category of "one of those lenses" as mentioned in the article. I agree about some of the other lenses. They have their special uses, but for the most part, we can do with most of them on a daily basis.
The error here is founded in the headline and general aim of this piece. Instead of heading down the path of “Here are six specialized lenses that might be handy tools for certain assignments” the author instead says, “But there are lenses which you probably won’t need anytime soon. Here are six of them.”. It’s a weak, somewhat ignorant framework that makes blanket assumptions about the photographic work that “you” do. And in no case does the author make a case regarding why “you” don’t need these lenses any more. (Fisheyes have distortion? Really?)
A disappointing piece.
Exactly, Kenneth!
I am glad that you get this - some others here clearly do not.
The author has no idea what kind of photography each reader does, so therefore he can not logically make any assumptions about what lenses each of us may, or may not, need. If he had only used the words, "many photographers" in the title, instead of the word, "you", then it would not be a self-righteous, "I know better than you and I am always right and you are wrong" kind of article. But he chose his title carelessly, and therefore it carries with it a sense of negativism and meanspiritedness.
In the spirit of educating, maybe you could write a pithy and punctilious article to show us the proper way to do it.
There's no need to write an entire article to show the author how to do it. All that needs to be done is to replace the word, "you" with the words, "many photographers". That little change would completely fix it.
All I am saying is that you seem to be angry that he didn't write the article the way that you would. It is easy to sit the game out and then complain about how it was played. I think that once people produce content (be it an article, or music, or art) that one has much more appreciation for others who also produce content - and they understand the limitations in trying to please everyone, including those who are bent on criticism.
I produce an enormous amount of written photography-related content on a regular and frequent basis. It would be unwise to assume otherwise. Don't assume anything.
You are to be commended. I hope your reviewers are kind. I went to your website. Impressive photos. I would be truly interested in reading any articles that you have written. I could certainly learn.
As Emerson wrote, "In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him." I assume nothing. I appreciate everyone's best intentions.
Thanks for your positivity, Walter. I would be glad to send you a lot of what I have written. It is scattered all over the place, so emailing content to you may work better than giving you links. Feel free to PM me here with your email if you're interested.
That would be a great title indeed.
Confronted with a body that is going downhill at a faster rate that I would like, I have switched to lighter and lighter gear. 10 years ago, I didn't mind dragging around a rucksack with 5 kgs of gear. Nowadays, that will induce a lot of pain. So, in my case, lighter and less is actually better.
Agree to all of them. Those are niche lenses anyway.
So much outrage! I took the article as advice to those who are generally interested in photography, not for professionals who specialize in particular areas. Obviously, a professional (or dedicated enthusiast) wildlife photographer will need an 800 mm lens. But if that is you, you don't really need general advice from an article because you are already an expert. Please read the article as it was intended, and don't infer nefarious intent. As a professional musician, I would be "outraged" if someone told me that I don't need half of my gear; however, 99.9% of people who play music for fun or weekend gigs would never need half of the gear that is essential for me, but i wouldn't post negative comments to an article that advises most musicians to not waste their money on things that they generally don't need, unless they have very specific demands. I assume the author was trying to help, not to denigrate. Hopefully, most of the arguers in this thread will consider that.
Nando, thank you for the very informative article. I don't have to agree with all of it, but I admire that you are trying to educate and guide.
Thank your for your kind wors. I appreciate it a lot
I'm beating a dead horse again, like I do almost every time I see an article mentioning TS/PC lenses.
The articles usually say something like what you said in this article: "the lenses do make it possible to correct converging lines of large buildings"
The lens has nothing to do with being able to correct converging lines of large buildings (or buildings of any size, or any converging lines.)
TS lenses allow you to affect the relationship between the image circle of the lens and the image sensor of the camera.(or film) Shifting the lens will move the image circle in relation to the sensor. Shifting the camera will move the sensor in relation to the image circle. The latter is preferable for architectural work.
But it's the sensor or film plane position relative to the subject (building) that is 100% responsible for prevalence or lack of keystoning. A plumb wall and a plumb sensor will give you straight vertical lines.
Also... bellows. "...technical cameras, which use bellows to manipulate the plane of focus"
A bellows doesn't manipulate the plane of focus. All a bellows does is keep light out. It sits between the front and rear standard on a camera.
Tilt & swing of the front standard (lens board/plate) are what manipulate the plane of focus.
Well, I am glad you corrected al these things. But I guess you know what I wanted to tell. Perhaps it is because English isn't my native language, or just because I just wanted it to keep simple.
Thanks for the response, Nando. I agree, keeping things simple is oftentimes best when addressing a general audience. I tend to be overly technical in my writings and the result is that people will just glaze over what I'm trying to say. I do really wish there were fewer misconceptions of how those lenses work.
There are some nice articles about these lenses, which were perfect when I started photographing with these lenses. Unfortunately these article are never read with so much enthousiasm as a subject like this.
At least I know what you were saying ;)
I use my tilt-shift lens on an almost daily basis. My fish-eye also gets to see the light of day quite often. My micro lens isn't in the flight case long enough to feel neglected.
Next pointless article...
I do wonder why ancient, hoary old photographers are getting upset at being told what they do or don't need. If not from the title, how long does it take to realise that this is advice for relative beginners? Not for people who could find their way around a camera shop blindfold.
As I think of it, perhaps I should have mentioned "beginning photographers" in the title ;)
I think it’s because ancient hoary old photographers remember when this site launched to the professional market. It was assumed that their readers would have attained a certain level of proficiency Articles reflected that.
Over recent years this site has changed its target to cater chiefly for beginners. Nothing wrong with that, and it’s my choice whether I continue to support it. However I now find that the articles rarely reflect my needs and interests. Probably is time to leave and stop my whinging.
I have and nikon D810 and just bought me an sigma 8-16mm.
I was verry Surprised when i got the objektiv on the camera 🙈 Guess thats gonna be a dust collector 🤦♂️
So why did you buy one?
To all the photographers whose underwear are up in a bunch:
Look, if you are doing the kind of work where you need a tilt/shift lens, then you know that you need it. You already, in fact, have one. This article is for people like me. I've often thought a tilt/shift would be cool. But I don't need it. How do I know I don't need it? Because I don't have it. If I needed it, I would have it.
This article isn't for you, tilt/shift guy. It's for me. Nando's telling me to chill, that I probably would use that tilt/shift next to never, and I shouldn't feel bad about not having it.
Same with the the rest of the lenses. Except #5 that's some straight up B%($&*#t, how dare you!