Often you get one lens included when buying a camera. But what if you want another one, which one do you need to buy? This article may be of help when choosing the best lenses for your photography.
When you start with photography, the camera you choose often comes with a single zoom lens. This lens is usable for regular photography. It is perfect for your holiday, children, a landscape, or your pet. But when you start to grow a preference for some kind of subject, that one lens often is limiting the possibilities. That is when you start searching for a second lens, or a replacementIt may be very difficult deciding what to choose, because there are a lot of different lenses available.
Perhaps the most common set of lenses available; a 24-70mm and 70-200mm zoom lens. These can be used for nearly every kind of photography. You could call it a universal set of lenses.
Some lenses are cheap, others will break the bank. You could spend a fortune on lenses, and probably still miss the one you really need. Looking at the second hand market learn how a lot of lenses are sold because it never left the bag. That is why I wrote this article with a basic lens choice for different types of photography.
First of all, only buy a lens because you need it, not because you might need it. And don’t buy too many lenses, because you probably will use only a few. Having a lot to choose from is also difficult. This article shows nothing more than a starting point. The combinations are my own personal choice, based on my experience. After you get more experienced in the discipline, you will find out what alternative you may need, or from which extra lens you would have benefit.
Although most of the images are of Canon equipment, this article is not about camera brand, lens brand, or other discussions on what is good and what is better. The lenses I show are just an example, concerning focal length and zoom range. For every brand there is a similar lens available, in the original brand of your camera, or a third party lens. Use whatever you like.
When using primes, you can end up with a lot of lenses of you want to cover a large range of focal lengths. And you will need to changes lenses more often than with zoom lenses.
Be careful not to buy every lens you can get your hands on. Often it is not needed to have all focal lengths in your bag. Don’t get the disease called GAS (Gear Acquire Syndrome), because it only makes you suffer from having too much choice, and a backpack that is much too heavy.
Landscapes
For landscapes you would like to have the ability to capture a wide scenery, or details in the landscape. A wide angle in the range from 16-35mm is a great choice, but make sure you also have something like a 70-200mm lens available. These don’t need to have a f/2.8 aperture; often f/4 is sufficient. But if you want to use these lenses indoors also, f/2.8 or larger may come in handy.
For landscapes two lenses is often more than enough; a wide angle zoom and tele zoom lens. In this example you see a 24-70mm and 70-200mm zoom lens, accompanied by a ultra wide angle 12mm by Laowa
Eventually you might want to have an even wider lens, if that kind of landscapes has your preference. Something like a 12mm ultra wide angle would be a great extension to this kit.
Alternatives for the 70-200mm can be a 70-300mm lens, or a 100-400mm, and you might think of a 24-70mm lens if you don’t like the extreme wide angle images.
Portraits and Wedding
I prefer primes for my weddings and can shoot nearly everything with this wonderful set of lenses. It is also perfect for portraits and model photography. The large aperture makes a beautiful shallow depth of field possible, although you don’t need to use that time and time again. Because these lenses are light sensitive, they also perform very well in dimly lit venues
My personal favorite set of lenses: a 35mm and 85mm lens. I find these perfect for weddings, studio and model shoots. These lenses allow a very shallow depth of field, something that is more difficult or even impossible to achieve with a zoom lens.
You might want to extend your set with a 135mm lens, or even a 200mm, in case you need to shoot from a distance. You also want to prevent having too much primes available, because it can force you to change lenses a lot.
If you don’t like primes, a 24-70mm and 70-200mm will be the lenses to go for. And preferably with an aperture of f/2.8 if possible. Not only for the shallow depth of field, but also for dimly lit venues.
Architecture and Real Estate
For real estate I prefer the tilt shift lenses. They provide the possibility to do perspective correction on the location. Often you don’t need more than these two focal lengths and there is always the possibility to crop afterwards in post. If 17mm still is not enough, you can make a panorama using the shift option.
For my real estate photography I love to use the 17mm and 24mm tilt shift lenses. It allows me to correct the perspective.
If you want to shoot some details, a 50mm tilt shift can help, but you can use a 24-70mm lens also. If you prefer having a normal lens, a 16-35mm lens may be the only lens you need to have. It don't have to be f/2.8 because a large depth of field is almost always needed.
Stars and Milky Way
- EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III
- Laowa 12mm f/2.8
For stars and Milky Way photography an extreme wide angle may be the first lens you would want to use. It also enables you to shoot relatively long exposures without the risk of star trails. A large aperture helps capturing the maximum amount of light.
Eventually you might like a 24mm or 35mm prime lens. Often these have a maximum aperture of f/1.4, which allows a lot of light to enter the lens, and you can even turn one stop down to get more sharpness. The focal length can help capturing the core of the Milky Way in more detail.
For night photography - stars and Milky Way - I often end up using a 16-35mm lens. If 16mm isn't wide enough, I can use the 12mm Laowa. Both have a f/2,8 aperture to capture enough light. This set is accompanied by a heat tape to prevent any dew or moisture on the lens.
There are a lot of alternatives, like fisheye lenses and other extreme wide angle. Fixed focus lenses may have some preference for the benefit of having large apertures.
Sports
- EF 24-70mm f/2,8L II
- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II
I don’t shoot sports, but I have done so on occasion. I find the 70-200mm a very nice all-round lens for this kind of photography, and a 24-70mm can be of benefit when you are able to get close by. The large aperture helps getting a fast shutter speed and prevents an ISO value that is too high.
The basic two lenses, a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm is a good starting set for sports. Depending on the kind of sport you can make the set more specialized. A large aperture can help freezing motion. The two lenses in this example are f/4 lenses. A f/2,8 is preferred.
I can imagine you need more focal length on occasion. In that case I would think of a 300mm or 400mm lens with the largest aperture available, or affordable. And perhaps a 16-35mm when you want to get very close.
An alternative can be a 70-300mm, 100-400mm, of 150-600mm lens, although you might end up with the need for high ISO values. The maximum aperture of these lenses is often limited to f/5.6 or smaller.
If you need a longer focal length, you can choose for a 100-400mm lens, or a fixed focal length for a large aperture. In this example you see a 150-600mm lens by Sigma, which zoom range is very versatile for many sports, or wildlife and birds for that matter.
Wildlife and Birds
- EF 24-70mm f/2,8L II
- EF 100-400mm f/4-5,6L II
If you love to shoot animals with a camera, you need a long lens. The first I would choose is a 100-400mm lens, which is a very versatile focal range. I would combine this with a 24-70mm lens for those occasions you want to capture the animal with its surroundings, which I love to do. If you have the money, you could add a 600mm lens to your set. But a tele converter can help also.
A sports camera and big zoom lens is very usable for wildlife and birds. These two camera's are accompanied by a 100-400mm lens. that are very usable for wildlife and birds. You can even combine these with a tele converter for some extra reach.
When shooting from a fixed location, you can use the massive light sensitive fixed focal tele lenses. These lenses can be very large and heavy, like this 800mm f/5,6 lens. Next to it you see the 70-200mm f/2,8 lens for comparison. Still, you may miss the zoom ability.
An alternative could be a lens similar in reach, like a 70-300 or a 150-600mm lens. Perhaps a 300mm prime would do perfect, although you could mis the zoom ability.
There are much more disciplines of photography, of course. If you would have to make a choice for only two lenses for your photography, which would it be and why? Please share this in the comments below.
If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.
Very helpful article, thanks! What do you think about a 2x telecomverter to stretch a 70-210 to 140-420mm?
A tele converter can be a cool thing to get a little more out of a lens, but keep in mind it will stop down your aperture making it less useful in lower light.
Just like Tom says; you will loose some light which can force you to use higher ISO values to compensate. But it is a relatively cheap way to extend your focal length if necessary. If you find out you are using the tele converter almost always, you might want to invest in a longer lens.
A tele converter is perfect for that one time, and to find out if you really need the extra focal length.
"If You Start Only With Two Lenses for Your Photography, What Would Be the Best Lens Choice?"
IMHO, a 50mm F1.4 prime, and a 70-200 F2.8 would be a good start with only 2 lenses.
I've done beautiful portraits with both lenses, (esp. the 50mm), and the 70-200 is good for so many things, including events, concerts, travel, etc. The 50mm can also work well with landscapes, architectural and indoor photos.
The only thing I might suggest is having two camera bodies so you don't have to switch out lenses.
It is a great choice. Indeed, the 50mm is a good and usable focal length for lots of photography.
Two bodies is a bit too much, I think. Unless you need to switch very quickly between the two lenses. I wouldn't want to carry two bodies all the time. I am always happy to put the second camera down during weddings. It can become so heavy... ;)
I agree with 35mm and 85mm. I mostly use just my 70-200mm for just about everything. It's pretty much glued to my camera body. Other than that I would say my 18-35 is second most used in my bag. If i had to chose only two lenses for the rest of my life id pick the 35 and 85.
I totally agree with you. That would be my number one choice also
Just got back from Smokey Mountains NP and the only equipment I used was a Tamron 100-400 on a D850 and a Sigma 24-105 Art on a Z7. Over a 5 day trip, there was only 1 instance where I could have used a lens wider than 24.
I find 24mm often more than enough for landscapes. If on occasion you need more than 24mm, you can always make a panorama shot. You even have the possibility to go even wider than the popular 16mm
I think your choice is a great one.
600 F4. 24-105.
The next two: 16-35 f4, 70-200 2.8. With these four, I can do nearly anything I want in my world.
To fully accomplish my kit: 35 1.4, 180 macro, 300 2.8.
Lenses I may add later: 11-24, Fisheye, 135 f2.
What a wonderful set of lenses. I can imagine you can shoot everything you want.
I don't agree with 100-400mm for wildlife. Unless you are shooting large mammals that want to walk up to you to be petted, generally the more reach the better. On the long end, the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 zooms are excellent values and are relatively inexpensive if you can't afford the first party prime version.
A 400mm lens is already a long focal length, but I agree it you would like to have more. A tele converter can help, but a 150-600mm is also a good alternative.
I believe if you seriously go for wildlife, you can shoot with 400mm amazing shots, as long as you learn the behaviour a animals and you have to be patient. A long focal length is not always the only answer.
Anyway, thanks for your valuable thooughts
For Weddings & Portraits, I like the variety between a 50 1.2 and the 24-70 2.8 the best. I keep both those on my 2 bodies for most of the day / shoot.
A nice combination. :)
I've been getting by with just a Fuji 35/2 and Rokinon 12/2 for my X-T1 for two years. I shoot primarily real estate and I absolutely love the 35 as a walkaround, so I haven't felt overly compelled to add to the arsenal yet. However, I'm starting to hear the siren song of that 16-80/4....
I hear a lot about extreme wide angle for real estate, but I prefer the focal length you mention also
I've been in some tight spaces where 10mm would've been handy, but I find that overall 12 (18 FF equivalent) strikes that perfect balance between wide FOV and low distortion.
I have a 12mm lens, but I don't like the wide angle distortion. Fortunately the vertical lines stay vertical :)
I specialize in Food images and my two favorite lenses are the Canon 50L and 100L/IS. I also shoot Lifestyle from time to time and like the 50L and 85/1.4L/IS for those projects.
I was wondering for food photography. Thanks for mentioning it
For portraiture I would add 130mm. I would rather have that with a 24-70 F2.8 than two primes (or just a 70-200 and call it a day) but that's just my preference.
I am thinking about the 135mm next to the 35 and 85 also. It is like the holy trinity for portraiture :)
which lens you choose is very personal, and I think there is (almost) no right or wrong
Although I haven't tried it, the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 looks like a great option for Astrophotography/Starry landscapes. According to DxO mark reviews, it's even at its sharpest when it's wide open.
Sounds very interesting indeed.
For travelling reportage work, I'd be good with these three lenses:
24/1.4
35/2.0
50/1.4
Being on Canon full frame, I've got the two first covered (the 35/2.0 has IS, which is why I didn't go with the 1.4) – but I really, really miss a decent, well built, fairly compact Canon 50/1.4 that is not soft wide open. The recent Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM came out in 1993.
When is the update due?
I'm using a Sigma ART 50/1.4 for now, lovely image quality, but extremely unreliable AF operation, even after lots of calibration and checkups.
Don't you miss a bit longer focal length? Like the 85mm or 135mm?
I do indeed love my 85/1.4 IS and my 70-200/2-8 IS, but for reportage work, I often find myself getting more involved when restricting myself to the 24-35-50mm kit. I simply have to get closer, and for me, that's a good thing.
For leisure photography I've even been travelling with only the 35mm for weeks – also for practical reasons – and still really enjoyed that challenge too. Makes me dream of the Sony RX1R II...
I understand.
I also love to use my Fujifilm X100t camera with fixed 22mm lens (35mm FF equivalent). It is a wonderful way of photography, not worrying about zooming in or out. Just get in close.
Unfortunately I use it not often enough ;)
The RF lenses may be good, but in that case you would need to buy another camera.
As you stated it is not about camera model...For a few years now I have been what you would call a "rounder" and have done Milky Ways, sunsets/rises, landscapes, portraits, indoor/outdoor, macro.... so from my lens collection and what I have done seeing what f/# was used most for all. You have to remember for outdoors day f/16, night with moon f/11, Astro yes everyone wants f/0 but even a f/1.8 or f/2.8 has some coma so f/4 works best mostly, sunrise/sunset well yes f/2.8 again BUT you will bracket anyway so again f/4 is good, blurring water a high f/# to slow the shutter, portraits oh the bokeh so a f/1.4 but software can do that for you so a f/4 if zoomed to say 85-105 and some distance it will be there. So two lenses I keep in my everyday bag with me everywhere. Ok 2014 I went Sony used my Canon film FD and EF-S lenses for two years and a lot of Sony lenses later I use the most the SEL1224G (no IS)(the SEL1018 in Full Frame was first is IS) and the SEL24240. All are f/4. 12mm is awesome for Astro, landscape, sunrise/sets and indoors say a church/hotel/home and 24-240mm (to 360mm in APS-C) great for portraits, landscape, sunrise/sets, birds wildlife or getting that compression shot. If paired with a Sony A7M2 and above you get IBS so less need for lens IS or tripod. I have a small grey sling bag and carry two cameras A7RM2 with SEL1224G, I can do a twofer Milky Way and sunrise and A7M3 with SEL24240 the third fer birds and wildlife all before 9am. Lastly mostly look at your software and what it will bring out in shadows and get clean whites with no blues, the newer cameras to pick are ISO Invariant so noise is mostly the same with all ISO's but more detail at the lowest. Not picking Sony as a camera but Nikon's AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm F2.8G ED is and has been a gold standard (I have used with an adapter most wonderful), all I am saying is one lens for ultrawide to middle area then middle to super long in whatever camera model you play with and is in your budget. I use my Canon T2i with two kit lenses. Expensive is not the answer it is how you use the lenses with no limits and knowing what the software will give you and when needed just bracket a shot like the old days of film pick one image or today merge them with software (a video game for photographers) the new darkroom without chemicals and more fun and maybe $$ in your pocket!!!
Indeed, it is not about cameras. Still you keep on mentioning details about cameras and ISO variance, and IBIS and all other Sony stuff.
I don't agree with a lot of thing you mention, like the use of software to imitate things like dof and moving water. That has nothing to do with photography anymore.
Nevertheless, if it works for you that is okay
It all depends on the type of work you make during weddings. For me a 70-200 is absolutely not necessary, but sometimes I find it very handy. :)
I can imagine you would like the zoom lenses, but I wouldn't use a singe memory slot camera for a wedding. I did that once with the EOS R, but I did not feel very comfortable with it. But that is another story ;)
You may find it senseless paranoia, but when you are shooting wedding you don't want to take any changes. It happens, I have seen it.
Since you did not have a card fail, it does not mean it won't happen at all
For sports, I think a 120-300mm f/2.8 is probably a superior choice to a 70-200. 200mm just isn't enough reach for many sports situations.
For Astro, I, personally, feel that a faster lens than 2.8 is more desirable as an entry-level astrophotographer isn't going to be walking around with the top end of low light sensor perfection. I'd look at a 1.8 or 1.4 personally to get the exposure time down and eliminate star trails.
For the wedding, I think the two primes would be more fitting for a seasoned wedding shooter. For someone new to shooting weddings they won't have the instinct to know exactly where they need to be to make the shot. Thus versatile zooms will probably serve them better than a pair of unforgiving primes, at least at the beginning.
I forgot about about the 120-300. That is a great focal length, Thanks for mentioning it.
About wedding, it is all about preferences. I don't think these are unforgiving.
I feel they are unforgiving if you are inexperienced as a chaotic wedding often means you don't have time to adjust your positioning because you were in the wrong place. Highly experienced wedding shooters know how to read the situation and be in the right place at the right time but those new to weddings will be mostly guessing and hoping.
As a separate aside, I think it is also wise for a wedding shooter to have access to at least one longer lens for situations where they need an intimate shot but are unable to close the gap and be close enough to make the shot with an 85mm. (An example being if the couple asks the photographer to capture the ceremony from behind the crowd as to not impede line of sight). Most wedding shooters I know tend to use a 35, 85, and 70-200 most of the time. I imagine if they had to drop one though, the 85 would be it.
I do understand your point.
A tele lens is no substitute for shooting a ceremony from behind the crowd. You can never have the intimate shots with that, because you are no longer part of the moment... you are only a distant observer
I think if a couple would insist having me behind the crowd, I would advise them to go look for another photographer because that is not my way of shooting a wedding. Fortunately no couple has asked me to stay behind the crowd.
But I have situations were a long focal length can make beautiful compositions, and I always have a 70-200 in my bag for when I need it.
35-90mm, HC 3,2/150 N
Good choices indeed! what about Sony FE 90mm F2.8 and Canon EF 24mm f/2.8? I put them on my list to showcase the best lenses for product photography.
https://www.clippingpath.in/blog/top-10-best-lenses-for-product-photogra...
Thank you. I don't have experience with product photography. This looks like a great addition to the list.
The FE 90mm looks like a great lens.
Nice selections for the genres. I shoot mostly landscape and social/cultural. For primes I would choose 24mm and perhaps 105mm for landscapes. For social/cultural it would probably be a 35mm and 85mm.
For zooms.....landscape - 18-35mm and 80-200mm. Social/cultural - 18-35mm and 28-70mm.
Hard to choose. You put some good choices up there.
Thanks Timothy
Indeed, it can be hard to choose sometimes.
I've greatly reduced my lenses from like 8, to just 3 currently... 24-70, 70-200 + 1.4 TC, 50mm.
I'm actually pretty content... and not over analyzing what prime lens combos I try to bring with me.
I may add one more, possibly a 105 macro to double as macro/portrait lens, or maybe a fast 135, but can't think of anything else I want, I guess it will present itself when it does.
I'm definitely more of a generalist, shooting everything from landscape, to street, to nature, to travel, to portraits.
I previously had 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, mid range zoom, telephoto zoom, wide angle zoom... in an attempt to cover everything, but, found probably half of them just collected dust... the two ultra wides (I really just don't like the look of anything wider than 24mm, but understand why some people need it., and the 35mm...too close to 50mm.