I have a full frame Nikon Z camera. I do have their wonderful 35mm lens. I've found that, for me, I use it only for specific situations like portraits (it's great for that). It's too limiting as a walk-around lens. Probably because I shoot more landscapes than people scenes. The other thing is that the camera came with a high quality 24-70mm, which I ended up selling and replacing with their no less high quality 24-120mm f/4. Much more flexible; I can get shots like you would with the lower end of a 100-400mm.
Lastly, I recently coughed up for the 100-400 and a teleconverter that turns it into a 200-800 (losing a couple of stops). I got it for the total solar eclipse in the Mediterranean next year, but I'm falling in love with the capabilities of this setup. But of course, it's not a walk-around lens. Long, heavy, hard to hand hold, wants a tripod with a gimbal.
As for the "every camera is good enough": I agree to an extent. And of course, the best camera is always the one with you, which is usually a phone, which also gets decent photos. But I appreciate the rich options in my camera for two reasons: they let me optimize for my own preference, like choosing the way it exposes and focuses (which I rarely deviate from); and they let me optimize for convenience, like setting separate buttons for focus and exposure (which I never deviate from). So it's not about having many options, it's more about having the options I want.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mitchell. I have never tried those long lenses you have but I have my fair share with the wide angle ones. I would say that my favourite FOV is the 35mm and the reason is that it was the first lens that actually forced me to think differently and helped me evolve. Before owning this lens (it was the 22mm f2 for the EOS M mount) I was only using zoom lenses. The fact that I had the option to zoom didn't push me to think outside of the box. I was making OK photographs but nothing worth revisiting. Now even if I use a zoom lens again the mindset has shifted and I owe this to the 22mm (35mm full frame equivalent). Currently I own the Nikon Zf with the 40mm and the 28mm. Light, cheap lenses but capable of producing great photographs.
That's a good point about the zoom. I think because I initially started with primes, it gave me some good basics and habits. By the time I got a zoom, I knew very specifically what I needed it for.
Thanks for sharing your experience Mitchel. Hard to beat a good 24-70 equivalent, it was all I used for about 10 years. I currently have 3 lenses, a 30 mm, 50 mm and a 90 mm. I use the 50 the most and then the 30 mm. After some feedback from Mitchel I realize that using primes might not be ideal for festivals and parades etc. so I am going to pick up a 24-120 for that purpose.
Actually, I took to photography when a friend showed me pictures taken through a long lens, something like 150-200 mm. Since I have only one healthy eye, I don’t have the third dimension - so everything I see for real is like a postcard.
The picture with that lens gave me the first impression what depth of field might feel like, as the face of the person was sharp and the background blurred. I was so impressed I bought a camera with a zoom lens and went through the world looking through it. I think my friends thought I was mad! Since then, I‘ve been travelling with my (now) micro 4/3 camera an my zoom lenses (f 2.8). Heavy gear, as I have no car and travel by train and on foot or bike.
Two months ago I bought my first full frame camera with a 42 mm f1.2 lens and I am discovering a whole new universe. Love it all!
Canon and others make magic lenses. There's Canon's RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM, great for close dog portraits, starfields and lightpainting. At the other end, I use Canon's RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS for wading whooping cranes in Texas and other wildlife.
I also like Canon's TS-E 17mm f/4L for ruins like Nevada's Fort Churchill State Historic Park lightpainted at night. Its shift function lets me shoot a tall ruin or building without tilting the camera, avoiding perspective distortion straight out of camera. I have that lens and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II from my days photographing real estate for clients.
My most-used travel lens in Panasonic's Lumix S 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6. I like having 20mm for close, wide shots. 24mm sometimes isn't wide enough. And 60mm works well enough at the long end. I never really liked 70mm.
I have a full frame Nikon Z camera. I do have their wonderful 35mm lens. I've found that, for me, I use it only for specific situations like portraits (it's great for that). It's too limiting as a walk-around lens. Probably because I shoot more landscapes than people scenes. The other thing is that the camera came with a high quality 24-70mm, which I ended up selling and replacing with their no less high quality 24-120mm f/4. Much more flexible; I can get shots like you would with the lower end of a 100-400mm.
Lastly, I recently coughed up for the 100-400 and a teleconverter that turns it into a 200-800 (losing a couple of stops). I got it for the total solar eclipse in the Mediterranean next year, but I'm falling in love with the capabilities of this setup. But of course, it's not a walk-around lens. Long, heavy, hard to hand hold, wants a tripod with a gimbal.
As for the "every camera is good enough": I agree to an extent. And of course, the best camera is always the one with you, which is usually a phone, which also gets decent photos. But I appreciate the rich options in my camera for two reasons: they let me optimize for my own preference, like choosing the way it exposes and focuses (which I rarely deviate from); and they let me optimize for convenience, like setting separate buttons for focus and exposure (which I never deviate from). So it's not about having many options, it's more about having the options I want.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Mitchell. I have never tried those long lenses you have but I have my fair share with the wide angle ones. I would say that my favourite FOV is the 35mm and the reason is that it was the first lens that actually forced me to think differently and helped me evolve. Before owning this lens (it was the 22mm f2 for the EOS M mount) I was only using zoom lenses. The fact that I had the option to zoom didn't push me to think outside of the box. I was making OK photographs but nothing worth revisiting. Now even if I use a zoom lens again the mindset has shifted and I owe this to the 22mm (35mm full frame equivalent). Currently I own the Nikon Zf with the 40mm and the 28mm. Light, cheap lenses but capable of producing great photographs.
That's a good point about the zoom. I think because I initially started with primes, it gave me some good basics and habits. By the time I got a zoom, I knew very specifically what I needed it for.
Thanks for sharing your experience Mitchel. Hard to beat a good 24-70 equivalent, it was all I used for about 10 years. I currently have 3 lenses, a 30 mm, 50 mm and a 90 mm. I use the 50 the most and then the 30 mm. After some feedback from Mitchel I realize that using primes might not be ideal for festivals and parades etc. so I am going to pick up a 24-120 for that purpose.
Even 24-70 will do, but sure 120 will give you more reach, but not so often that I felt I needed it.
Actually, I took to photography when a friend showed me pictures taken through a long lens, something like 150-200 mm. Since I have only one healthy eye, I don’t have the third dimension - so everything I see for real is like a postcard.
The picture with that lens gave me the first impression what depth of field might feel like, as the face of the person was sharp and the background blurred. I was so impressed I bought a camera with a zoom lens and went through the world looking through it. I think my friends thought I was mad! Since then, I‘ve been travelling with my (now) micro 4/3 camera an my zoom lenses (f 2.8). Heavy gear, as I have no car and travel by train and on foot or bike.
Two months ago I bought my first full frame camera with a 42 mm f1.2 lens and I am discovering a whole new universe. Love it all!
Canon and others make magic lenses. There's Canon's RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM, great for close dog portraits, starfields and lightpainting. At the other end, I use Canon's RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS for wading whooping cranes in Texas and other wildlife.
I also like Canon's TS-E 17mm f/4L for ruins like Nevada's Fort Churchill State Historic Park lightpainted at night. Its shift function lets me shoot a tall ruin or building without tilting the camera, avoiding perspective distortion straight out of camera. I have that lens and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II from my days photographing real estate for clients.
My most-used travel lens in Panasonic's Lumix S 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6. I like having 20mm for close, wide shots. 24mm sometimes isn't wide enough. And 60mm works well enough at the long end. I never really liked 70mm.