What's you favorite DSR lenses? Even if you use another brand!

favorite lenses

What are your favorite lenses?

I'm sort of frustrated because it seems like canon produces these great cameras but falls short in the lens dept.

I'm not a pro that can afford a lot of f1.2 lenses but I'm willing to save for one if it's worth it while I trudge along w my 28-105 f3.5 & 70-300is f4.5, both of which leave something to be desired. Of the two I favor the 28-105 because of its size + at 8mgpxl, I can crop for cu(s) or ecu(s) if I can't get my camera into the right position.

Thanks.

I haven't had it very long, but so far I'm very happy with the 24-105L as a general purpose lens on the 1DMkII. I recently traded my 24-70L for it, as I wanted a little more reach and IS for event shooting. I've shot one dance event with it so far, and it really exceeded my expectations.

I won't say it's my "favorite" though. My favorites tend to run to the extremes, i.e., the 400 f/2.8L IS and the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

My favorite lenses

I shoot with a 1DsMkII and mainly do portrait and model portfolio shoots, so it will be a bit different then what your needs are, but...

In order of desire to use if I can make it work:

1. 85/f1.2 (I have mk-I ) (just beautiful shots if I hit the focus and DoF right on the money - useless for action photography)

2. 70-200/2.8L IS (I use this for all outdoor model shoots as my main lens)

3. 28-70/2.8L (bit old for a lens these days - used for studio shoots as my main lens because my studio space is a bit smaller then I would like, I still like it better then the 24-70/2.8L lens I got to play with. If I had the space I would pick the 70-200 over the 28-70 though, but it would be close.

4. Anything on my camera that does the job.
With note that I always use my 100-400L for airshows and play with my 16-35/2.8 for artsy shots. My other lenses mostly stay on the shelf, except for special occasions or needs.

Being able to get to f2.8 makes a noticeable difference to me, but on top of that the "L" lenses have a much nicer look to them then the lenses I had before I went the L route just to get the F2.8. Although I love my 85/f1.2, I am normally not a big fan of prime lenses, which means it really has to produce some wonderful stuff to overcome that bias.

Just my opinion,

Hi Jan,

A great question!

I use the EF 50 2.4 Macro for such a lot of purposes, as it is tack sharp and unobtrusive. Works well for events, can give wonderful portraits with a 3D appearance, great landscape lens.

The 70-200 f 4.0 L is perfect for travel or hiking. As sharp as the ff2.8L but fits in ones pocket and protects one's back and arms!!

The 70-200 2.8 L IS works wonders at weddings, sports and for all work with models and actors and portraits. This is a money lens.

21mm, 18, 28 Distagon 2.8, the most wonderful lenses to use for wide angle on Canon DSLR's. The 18mm I use on the 1DII but not on the 5D since it is said to hit the mirror.

My suggestion is that we should use the best lens we can afford to do the jobs you generally do. Manual focus works very well for WA lenses. Many are obtainable used!

Asher

I've got to give another vote for the 70-200 F4L (no IS yet). This lens is a joy to use. It's light enough that I don't mind carrying it for many miles. It focuses very quickly. It comes with an excellent lens hood. It's as sharp as anything I've used.

Which is something that's often overlooked. I know I find listing everything I own or have used to be somewhat distasteful, but one thing I picked up on fairly early is that "good" for one photographer won't necessarily be "good" for another. This can be because they're looking to use the gear for different things, but can also be because they just don't have the the same depth of experience or expectations. I take online reviews and comments with a huge grain of salt, unless I have a strong understanding of where the reviewer is coming from.

My interest is fine art nature photography. I'm an amateur who spends faaar too much money on camera gear and does not expect to get any fiscal return on my investment. It's a hobby. I take it very seriously, though, so I'm not happy with soft lenses.

Soo... When I say that the 70-200 F4L is as sharp as anything I've used, I'm comparing it against (in rough chronological order):

• 18-55 kit lens
• Sigma 28-90 zoom (can't remember the apertures, but this plus the next lens were about $200 or so)
• Sigma 70-300 (cheap, see the one above)
• EF 50mm f1.8 (with the newer plastic lens mount)
• EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS USM
• EF 50mm f2.5 macro
• EF 17-40 F4L
• EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM
• EF 100mm f2.8 macro
• EF 24mm F1.4L

All packed into 3 years or so, and the best camera I've used is the 20d. Not a professional level camera. Not something that should really challenge the abilities of any of the better lenses. I've also not used any of the really high priced lenses - the 24-70s, 16-35s, or the big long glass.

I think I've got a pretty darn good foundation for saying the 70-200 F4L is great, but I'm not a pro, I don't have the latest cameras (which may show the shortcomings of lenses to a greater extent), I can't see well enough in my viewfinder to manually focus, so I don't know anything about that at all, and I'm really only looking at using it within my fairly narrow field (natural light, outdoor/nature photography which is very forgiving of things like color balance and slow focus times).

Erik DeBill said:

I've got to give another vote for the 70-200 F4L (no IS yet). This lens is a joy to use. It's light enough that I don't mind carrying it for many miles. It focuses very quickly. It comes with an excellent lens hood. It's as sharp as anything I've used..........

Soo... When I say that the 70-200 F4L is as sharp as anything I've used, I'm comparing it against (in rough chronological order):

• EF 50mm f2.5 macro
  
• EF 100mm f2.8 macro
  

Not something that should really challenge the abilities of any of the better lenses.

Click to expand...

Erik,

I agree with everything except what I have left in your post, a small part, I must admit, yet important to question.

I wonder whether in practice the 70-200 is better for fine art nature photography than the EF 50mm Macro 2.5 and the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro. These lenses are amongst the very best tools made for the nature photgraphy, IMHO.

I would highly recommend revisiting these two lenses. I don't own the 100mm Macro but that is planned or else the 150mm Macro by Sigma.

I do have a Macro screw-in front filter lens for the 70-200, but this is just a useful thing to have in one's bag, not a competitor for the Macro lenses!

So that is my take on the Macro lenses, although it takes nothing from the "royal" position I assign to the 70-200 L lens.

The next issue is the idea that "The 20D is not professional". I would agree that the 20D is lowly compared to the latest the 1D series hardy and wonderful performers.

However, imagine 10-15 years ago, a 20D would be a $5000-30,000 camera if available!

The 20D IMHO can provide anyone with a living.

Weddings? No problem. just take large groups with a rented Mamiya 7 or ant Haselblad, Bronica or Mamiya Pro film camera from the past 30 years! Otherwise the 20D is way superior for event photography where you have many pictures to take at a reasonable competitve cost.

Landscape? Get a Sigma 12-24 Zoom, $689 new or stitch.

Architecture: as above, but you are challenged for more sophisticated demands and may need to rent.

Portrait, the 70-200 or the EF 50mm Macro

and so on!

Don't underate what you have!

You have enough to do almost anything you may put your mind too, except perhaps birding!

A long response, but we need sometimes to get some reinforcement that our "stuff" is somehow not good enough.

One suggestion, try for two weeks to just use your EF 50m Macro as your only lens, you might be amazed!

Your choice of the 70-200 is one of the best any photographer can ever make! That, IMHO, is the money lens!

Asher

Canon 24-70L, razor sharp wide open throughout the range (after calibration but then this is Canon!), wide, normal and mild telephoto in a fast zoom lens that focuses down to 0.45m with the cleverest hood design and best flare control I've ever seen including my 70-200 f4L that flares far more! My most used lens by far with 50,000 actuations under it's belt and you will not be able to prise it away from my cold and dead fingers..

24-70lL for me too, particularly after Ben has tested it ;-)

Asher Kelman said:

I agree with everything except what I have left in your post, a small part, I must admit, yet important to question.

I wonder whether in practice the 70-200 is better for fine art nature photography than the EF 50mm Macro 2.5 and the EF 100mm 2.8 Macro. These lenses are amongst the very best tools made for the nature photgraphy, IMHO.

I would highly recommend revisiting these two lenses. I don't own the 100mm Macro but that is planned or else the 150mm Macro by Sigma.

Click to expand...

I find that my copy of the 50mm f2.5 macro has several problems. It may just be a bad copy, but it overshoots when autofocusing (and remember my comment about not being able to see well enough to focus reliably in the 20d viewfinder?) and cannot achieve sharp infinity focus on hot days. I've never taken a shot with it and had it make me say "wow, that's sharp!".

I love my 100mm f2.8 macro, but I find it has a problem with bloom around high contrast transitions. This makes it seem considerably less sharp. Again, I've never had it produce shots that made me go "wow, that's sharp!". The 70-200 has, and so has the 50mm f1.8.

Both lenses were purchased new, so any abuse is my own. It's possible I just got bad copies of both of them.

So that is my take on the Macro lenses, although it takes nothing from the "royal" position I assign to the 70-200 L lens.

Click to expand...

They're both good (well, at least the 100mm is...), just not AS good

The next issue is the idea that "The 20D is not professional". I would agree that the 20D is lowly compared to the latest the 1D series hardy and wonderful performers.

However, imagine 10-15 years ago, a 20D would be a $5000-30,000 camera if available!

The 20D IMHO can provide anyone with a living.

Weddings? No problem. just take large groups with a rented Mamiya 7 or ant Haselblad, Bronica or Mamiya Pro film camera from the past 30 years! Otherwise the 20D is way superior for event photography where you have many pictures to take at a reasonable competitve cost.

Landscape? Get a Sigma 12-24 Zoom, $689 new or stitch.

Architecture: as above, but you are challenged for more sophisticated demands and may need to rent.

Portrait, the 70-200 or the EF 50mm Macro

and so on!

Don't underate what you have!

Click to expand...

It's a very capable beast, but so was the 300D, the 350D and now the 400D. You can use it for professional work, but it was never intended for that purpose, and I wouldn't want to project lens performance on it to one of the current professional cameras. There are professional photographers producing impressive work with Holgas, but that doesn't make a Holga a professional camera.

You have enough to do almost anything you may put your mind too, except perhaps birding!

Click to expand...

Actually, I've had a rather good time taking flight shots with the 100-400. Everything from geese to hummingbirds. It's a little slow to focus and tends to hunt a lot in low light, but with practice you can still get lots of keepers.

A long response, but we need sometimes to get some reinforcement that our "stuff" is somehow not good enough.

Click to expand...

I'm not blaming my gear for anything but limiting the effective print sizes I can make.

My point was that you have to take the depth of experience and intended use into account when evaluating a review or recommendation. The 70-200 would not be especially great for macro work (though the zoom interacts with extension tubes in an interesting fashion). Likewise, an "OMG this lens is SOOO sharp" review from someone who's previous experience is all with disposable cameras doesn't mean a lot. The average camera gear review forum has lots of posts like that and isn't much help at sifting the good from the bad.

One suggestion, try for two weeks to just use your EF 50m Macro as your only lens, you might be amazed!

Click to expand...

I've actually done that. For a while after I got it I was using it as a 100% replacement for the 50mm f1.8. It just wasn't as sharp, even when I had a UV filter on the 1.8 and no filter on the 2.5. I've seen the MTF charts showing it as sharper than the 50mm f1.8, but after lots of trying, I just don't see it. My (first) large format camera finally arrived today, so I'm afraid that's going to be consuming me for quite some time. A post about that is coming in the medium and large format forum.

Great response Erik,

I'm concerned that you have bum copies of the Macro lenses!

Could be that the optics are not alligned right! When did you get them> The 50 2.5 should blow away the 50 1.8 unless the latter was beamed down by Martian creatures that love you

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Your choice of the 70-200 is one of the best any photographer can ever make! That, IMHO, is the money lens!

Click to expand...

Is it your opinion that the 3 L lenses are worth the money. Thinking of getting rid of my current lenses & buying all 3, ie. 17-40, 24-105, 70-200.

Jan Rifkinson said:

Is it your opinion that the 3 L lenses are worth the money. Thinking of getting rid of my current lenses & buying all 3, ie. 17-40, 24-105, 70-200.

Click to expand...

My opinion is YES.

- DL

Hi Jan,

I think if you get the three lenses you mention, you'll be well pleased. But fwiw, I think the 24-70 is better than the 24-105 in many circumstances. I bought the 24-70 first, sh. With the Kenko convertors, both the 1.4 and the 2*, it is still pdg. I have the 70-200 f4, but would really like that quality, but in a 300 - if you need it, it is probably the best value for money, as Asher, others have said, its not too big. I also have the 17/40, which I very rarely use, but you may use that more (depends how close you are to your puppies ;-). That's all with a 20d (crop image). I could get by with just the 24/70, and the tele convertors.

Best wishes,

Ray

Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS

My recently acquired 24-105 f/4L has become my favorite. I have a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 that I've taken thousands of pics with that was my previous favorite, marred primarily by issues with chromatic aberration, but even on my 20D I found that to be a focal length range I used a large fraction of the time. Giving up a stop of speed in exchange for IS, a bit on the wide end, and a lot on the long end (and nearly $1000...) has been a good trade. I've never seen anything as sharp as the 24-105, even wide open. It's not as big and heavy as the 24-70 f/2.8L either, so unless you need f/2.8 the 24-105 is a great choice.

I haven't used a lot of other fancy glass for comparison, but I would definitely recommend that lens to anyone who can afford it.

Aaron

I recently traded my 24-70 for a 24-105, and so far I'm very happy with it. I found that when I was using the 24-70 (events, group shots, etc. with the 1DMkII) it was most often at smaller apertures and with flash and *very* seldom at f/2.8, and that I often wished for a little more reach (and a little less weight), and occasionally for IS. The 24-105 seems to fit the bill nicely.

But individual needs differ, and it's not an easy decision when you're starting from scratch. I'm confident that the person I traded with is just as happy with the 24-70 as I am with the 24-105. ;-)

OTOH, given the way I use my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, I don't think I'd be happy with f/4 there at all. That lens gets used wide open most of the time.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

It's funny, Nill, that I have been thinking of getting the 20-70 2.8L because it allows more work in available light conditons.

I found the 24-105mm L is wonderfully sharp and has great color and contrast, yet I've been stymied by low light situations. My solution is to have the almost free of charge 50mm 1.8 in my pocket too.

I intend to add the 85mm 1.8 too. That is probably the best solution.

Oh, a slightly better solution is to add the Canon 50mm 1.2L, as if you think its worth carrying!

Asher

I use the 24-70L a great deal--not sure if its my favorite as far as carrying, but I love the results. I have one of the first after it replaced the 28-70 and its been on all my bodies with no need of recalibration.

Another lens I like a good bit isn't one that is regarded highly, but I've had really good results with it---the 28 f/1.8. And--my current love is the 45 TSE---I carry it instead of my 50 f/1.4 quite a bit (unless I know I will need a very fast lens). Its MF, heavier and bulkier than one would think, cranky, happier on tripod but 'allows' me to use it handheld LOL---and its almost always in my bag these days. Certainly not for everyone---its not a lens that you shoot quickly with---it takes patience, time to set up (metering before movements, mf--and then readjustment after movements), but if you like to shoot slowly and methodically--and like 'process' (which includes 'how' to use it)--then it may be for you. I do still like my 50 f/1.4 too though (and my 85 f/1.8). I do have a tendency to like what I"m shooting with if it allows me to shoot as I wish LOL.

Diane

My favorite is probably my old 300/4L, sharp, not too heavy and built like a tank. Once I put my 30D, with said lens, on top of my car, and slammed the door. One microsecond later, "THE CAMERA!", too late, it fell on the asphalt with lens first. As luck would have it, the hood was out and took most of the impact, on closer inspection there was a small indent on the hood, and that was it! Still works excellent, just took a rubber mallet, and slowly worked out the indent.

Diane Fields said:

I use the 24-70L a great deal--not sure if its my favorite as far as carrying, but I love the results. I have one of the first after it replaced the 28-70 and its been on all my bodies with no need of recalibration.

Another lens I like a good bit isn't one that is regarded highly, but I've had really good results with it---the 28 f/1.8. And--my current love is the 45 TSE---I carry it instead of my 50 f/1.4 quite a bit (unless I know I will need a very fast lens). Its MF, heavier and bulkier than one would think, cranky, happier on tripod but 'allows' me to use it handheld LOL---and its almost always in my bag these days. Certainly not for everyone---its not a lens that you shoot quickly with---it takes patience, time to set up (metering before movements, mf--and then readjustment after movements), but if you like to shoot slowly and methodically--and like 'process' (which includes 'how' to use it)--then it may be for you. I do still like my 50 f/1.4 too though (and my 85 f/1.8). I do have a tendency to like what I"m shooting with if it allows me to shoot as I wish LOL.

Diane

Click to expand...

I can't edit at this point, but forgot to mention that the 45 TSE is f/2.8. I shoot a lot of available light so like my faster lenses---but can live with f/2.8 for this lens, my 24-70L also.

Diane

24-70 2.8l

My favorite two lenses are the 24-70 2.8L and the 50 2.5 on the 5D. The 50 is softer and the 24-70 razor sharp most of the time. I like selective focused images and found with both of these I am quite happy.

In a class I took a couple years ago, the instructor, Carlan Tapp, had us pick a focal legnth and stick with it. I took the whole class with nothing but the 50 2.5 and I was very happy with my images. Enough that I bought the 50 1.2 today. I played a bit with it today and the model (my friend's 6 year old) wasn't coopertative in the least., nor was my Lhasa Apso. I think that new lense may just be a walk around for me.

In 3rd place I do like the 70-200 2.8L but I haven't used it as much as the 24-70. I only have one non Canon lens the Sigma 12-24 and I have no complaints when I wa to do something fun and different. I'm done with buying any lenses for quite a while, but, the 24-105 is a possibility at some point. We'll see. My next purchases are going to be in the lighting department.

Well Kathy,

Thousand Oaks now seems much closer. Interesting the 1.2 lens shrinks the highway miles to make you just close enough to come by! Hmm! That's something to think about!

The Sigma 12-24 is also something that I want to try ever since I was blown over by the 6ft pictures of super yachts by Nicolas Claris.

Asher

By far my sharpest and technically best lens is my 70-200 f4L, but my favorite (cause I use it the most) is my 17-35 f2.8L. My particular copy seems to be better even than the typical 16-35L replacement.

- DL

Kathy where did you get the 50 f/1.2 and what did you have to pay for it? I'd love to see some images from it and hear your impressions of it. Particularly, what's your impression of how quickly it focuses in low light as compared to your 24-70?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

50 1.2

Well, I have been playing with it and while I love the bokeh, I haven't had the most cooperative subjects. I think there is some light fall off at 1.2 - in all fairness I took this in the house with only some canned overhead spotlights on in my office and my subject is hard to photograph under good circumstances. But low light was one reason I bought this. I wanted to test the low light capability. I find that I need to get used to any new gear and then I make my judgement call. Ask me in a few weeks. I am taking my kit to the Carribbean on a cruise for a week and I think that I will play with this one, the 12-24 and the 70-200 2.8L and see what happens. Asher, I'd love to meet up with you with the 12-24 and the 50 1.2 when I get back. And while I live in TO, I work in Woodland Hills. Maybe the Getty would be a good spot to meet.

I ordered it from Canoga Camera about 6 weeks ago - $1598. I laugh on the photo forums when the gentlemen make note that their wives are on their backs for buying gear. Mine just is shaking his head these days when he sees those boxes that say Canon on them. Forget the shoes we women are known to collect. How can I zoom with my feet wearing the latest Manolo's or Jimmy Choos = NOT!




This I took right out of the box.


This is my husband calling Visa - "No more Canon purchases allowed" (ha ha)

Favorite lenses

I probably use the 70-200 2.8 IS most often. It's incredibly flexible; despite the weight, it's the one that sits on the camera when I'm not sure what opportunities will arise. Great for portraits, though the 85 1.8 is, too, and weighs much less!

I love to use the 135 2.0, and always look for excuses to take it out. It's superb for theater and whenever the lighting is tricky. I'm now "breaking in" a 200 1.8, which may push the 135 down a notch.

Strangely, I rarely use the 24-70. It's a very good copy, but somehow its quality isn't as evocative. In that range, it's usually the 35 1.4 and "sneaker zoom" or the 16-35 that I reach for.

Deborah Kolt said:

I probably use the 70-200 2.8 IS most often. It's incredibly flexible; despite the weight, it's the one that sits on the camera when I'm not sure what opportunities will arise. Great for portraits, though the 85 1.8 is, too, and weighs much less!

I love to use the 135 2.0, and always look for excuses to take it out. It's superb for theater and whenever the lighting is tricky. I'm now "breaking in" a 200 1.8, which may push the 135 down a notch.

Strangely, I rarely use the 24-70. It's a very good copy, but somehow its quality isn't as evocative. In that range, it's usually the 35 1.4 and "sneaker zoom" or the 16-35 that I reach for.

Click to expand...

Hi Deborah,

The 70-200 is everyone's favorite, although I think that the star might become the new 4.0 IS especially as Canon advances in low noise at high ISO.

How does one break in a 200 1.8? More important, how did you find it?

(The 24-70 you would use more often if you did the weddings where they demand 500 social pictures at the reception, or maybe you use the 35 1.4 L.)

Anyway, I'm impressed at your lens collection!

Asher

Kathy Rappaport said:

Well, I have been playing with it and while I love the bokeh, I haven't had the most cooperative subjects. I think there is some light fall off at 1.2 - in all fairness I took this in the house with only some canned overhead spotlights on in my office and my subject is hard to photograph under good circumstances. But low light was one reason I bought this.

Asher, I'd love to meet up with you with the 12-24 and the 50 1.2 when I get back. And while I live in TO, I work in Woodland Hills. Maybe the Getty would be a good spot to meet.

Click to expand...

Kathy, I'm happy for you! The key for guys with tough wives is to encourage them to go to the sales. Then simply buy your lens and show that it's just about even!

I think that, apart form architecture and graphic design the are few real requirements that justify all the hyper nonsense about vignetting. Light falls off; so what? I used to spend time in the darkroom with a piece of card on a stick dodging to make sure the center was exposed and the outside was dark.

Lenses were accepted then as having character. Now there is some need to make pictures that are exactly something, as if we are running our lives with needs for something to be tested by the bureau of standards.

I think that a silky bokeh and an ability to grab more light seems great to me. Imagine that in a nightclub? With the fall off, it will be wonderful. These scenes need to have some peripheral dimming anyway.

I would love to know how fast the lens focuses? Also how noisy is it and does it snap to its focus? If you have a 50 1.4 or 1.8 it would be nice to have an idea of how if it focuses better.

Anyway, I'm delighted they made that lens. It's about time!

Oh, I'm looking forward to hearing from you when you return. Have a great vacation. Don't let the lens stay up too late or get drunk!


Asher

I like the 70-200 f/4

If we are talking Canon glass, then my favorit lens is the 70-200 f/4. The TS-E 90 is also pretty nice. In addition to those above I also have the 135 f/2, the 15mm fisheye, the 17-40mm wide zoom, the 24-70mm, 50 f/1.4, the 100-400 L IS, the 100 macro USM, TS-E 24 and had a bunch of others including the 16-35, 28-70. None yield the image quality that I get from the 70-200 f/4. This is just a fantastic lens.

I've been experimenting with leica, Zeiss, and Olympus glass on my canon and finding I really like the Leica look.

Every photo forum I've visited has these "what's your favorite lens" threads, often repeated every few months. They all read the same and string along for pages. I've never been sure what photographic value anyone could possibly glean from such a discussion. I own more lenses than I care to admit publicly, a mixture of zooms and primes. I selected, and use, each with a very specific type of application in mind. I generally use primes for images that I can set-up, zooms for situations of encounter.

I cannot honestly say that one lens is my "favorite"; they're each excellent for their applications. I can also say that I could make do with perhaps 1/3 of my lenses and, when shooting out and about, rarely carry more than one additional lens. The more junk you carry the worse your photography will be, due often to the discomfort and distraction of carrying more stuff and having more choices and decisions to make.

I strongly recommend that newcomers to photography buy one or two of the best lenses they can possibly afford and stick with them for as long as possible. Select zooms with constant apertures and the fastest primes you can afford. Having a stock of fewer lenses greatly increases one's visual creativity.

As a side note, I don't think that newcomers to photography really appreciate just how good, and relatively inexpensive, today's lenses really are. Yes, there have been many good lenses in decades past. But today's lenses are, in general, lighter, faster, sharper and in greater variety than the selections available thirty years ago. Contrary to all of the complaining you read on Internet boards we're really living in a golden age for photography equipment in general and lenses in particular.

Well Ken, I back what you say and would go one step further.

It is best for a new photgrapher to have just one lens for at least the first year. I would suggest the 50 1.8 or the 501.4 or best the 50 2.5 Macro.

One lens can give mastery of something and a feel for photography. The point to learn is framing. Zooming can be done with the feet or with Photoshop.

Unless one is starting with birds or sports, there's no need, IMHO, for any other lens most of the time.

I find it useful to see how some lenses are utilized by others who's work I admire. For example, only by hearing from Nicolas, did I have any idea how great hte sigma 12-24 zoom is. So these threads can reveal where one could indeed get rid of lenses and consolidate.

I'm not that cynical. I take the good and am not bothered about the rest.

Asher