Related Links:
Kiev 60 Ultralight Kit
LF Lens Kits

Selecting lenses is rather dependent on your style of photography. If you are into sports photography, you may not have much use for wide angle lenses. A landscape photographer might not ever need a 500mm fast lens. So the first question you have to think about is what kind of photographer are you?

This is good advice, and often given online, but somewhat useless IMHO. How do you know what kind of photographer you are until you explore yourself and your interests?

And photography is supposed to be F_U_N!!!

Part of that fun is exploring different lenses and what you can do with them.

In Curing Lens Envy, I suggest some simple no-cost ways to help you pick the lens you really need. All you need is an empty slide mount and a piece of string and a ruler.

Take the string, and tie a good sized knot at the very end of it. Use the ruler to measure out 28mm, and put a knot there. Put another knot at 35mm, and 50mm, and 105mm, 135mm, 200mm, and 300mm.

Now hold the end of the string with the knot on it right under your eyeball, against the bony bottom part of your eye-socket. Stretch out the string, holding the slide on top of the string.

Simply move the empty slide up and down the string, using it to visualize your photographs. Using this setup, you can now see about what you would see with a zoom lens or series of prime lenses at those focal lengths.

Walk around for a few weeks, pulling out this setup to see which lenses would work best for your interests and picture taking. Take notes. Pretty soon, you should have a pretty good idea of what lenses you really need.

What about 500mm? Simply hold your hand out at arm's length, and look at your thumbnail. Your thumbnail will cover just about what a 500mm lens would see and cover on your camera. Pretty soon, you will see why 500mm is so rarely carried by even avid photographers!

Using an Ultra-zoom

Another approach is to use a super-zoom, such as the 28mm to 210mm zooms made by Vivitar, Kiron, Tamron, and others. These zooms can often be picked up for under $100 US used, in a variety of camera mounts.

You can use your 7:1 zoom and camera to help you select which lenses best reflect your photographic interests. These zooms also have an extra benefit in that they permit you to do macrophotography with some settings.

You may discover that you are always pushing the long or shot end of the zoom's range. That's valuable information. You should then consider if you need to look into 24mm or wider lenses, if on the wide side, or 300mm zooms if on the long end. But for most of us, you will find that your ideal optics lie within this rather broad 28mm to 210mm range.

Teleconverter Magic

When selecting lenses, keep teleconverters in mind. The 2X teleconverters are more popular and powerful. The 1.4X teleconverters are sometimes more useful and often have less distortion too. The 3X teleconverters are rarely used today, as they had so much image degrading effect as to be worse than simply enlarging a smaller image.

With a 1.4X teleconverter, you lose a stop of light. So an 135 f/2.8 lens becomes the equivalent of a 190mm f/4. A 200mm f/4 becomes a 280mm f/5.6 equivalent. With a 2X teleconverter, your 135mm f/2.8 becomes 270mm f/5.6 and your 200mm f/4 is a rather slow 400mm f/8 equivalent. You can also convert your 50mm f/1.7 into a 100mm f/3.4 using that 2X.

Now consider two lens kits, and the effects of using a teleconverter:

The following table for 1.4X teleconverter shows why the 1.4X teleconverter is so popular with professional photographers. Unlike the 2X teleconverter, it provides less distortion and better contrast. Yet most amateur photographers buy 2X teleconverters. The key to getting the maximum benefit from a teleconverter is to use the right one!

The above tables also illustrate the benefits of skipping fifty, and using a fast 35mm f/2 or faster wide angle as a normal lens. In fact, the 35mm is closer to the ideal 43mm diagonal (of 24x36mm film) and coverage.

Nibbling Up and Down

Some photographers start with a 50mm lenses. They discover they can't quite get enough in the picture, so they buy a 35mm lens. That's better, but you know, wider would be nicer still. So they get a 28mm lens. And hey, that distortion is pretty neat. How about a 24mm? Yes, you are right, now they're addicted! Soon they are taking a second lease out to afford that 8mm fisheye.

You can also nibble your way up. Say 50mm is nice, but portraits look better with 105mm lenses. You are shy, so you decide to get a 135mm lens so you can shoot from a bit farther off. You go to the zoo, and discover you need at least a 200mm to get decent animal shots. Now you are in real trouble. You can't shoot birds without at least a 300mm, and it better be fast too! And that 400mm is okay for tame wildlife at the National Parks, but in Denali Park in Alaska you really need a 500mm and maybe an 800mm mirror too. Phew!

Yes, folks, what you have just read is the nibbling approach!

Lens Kit Buying Suggestions

Regardless of which lens you buy, allow time between purchases to get to know your new lens and what it can do for you. Actually shoot some film through it, and learn what it can do.

Don't buy a number of lenses all at once. Really don't buy a bunch of lenses and new camera gear right before a once-in-a-lifetime trip. You can't buy insurance against Murphy's Law!

Take some local trips, using just the one new lens. Explore its capabilities. Learn its minimum closeup distance and area covered. How does it fare in backlighting situations with flare?

Do you keep on taking cliche photos, or are you finding new and exciting ways to use it now that it is the only lens you have?

Are you being limited by what the lens can do, or by your willingness to explore how to use it? For example, when I had only the 24mm lens on my camera, I experimented making some portrait photographs. To my surprise, some of the full-length portraits worked out lots better than I expected. You had to be careful, but you could learn to control the distortion. But you also had to learn to exploit the distortion with nearby objects too!

Extending Your Lens Reach for Low Dollars

There are some tricks you can use to extend the reach of your basic lens kit. Such tricks are most useful where the cost of a lens is very high, and the amount of use most amateur photographers have for it is actually rather small.

Most photographers will identify fisheye lenses and long telephoto lenses as prime candidates for help in extending the reach of your lens kit.

We have already shown how a low cost 1.4X teleconverter, or 2X teleconverter if you aren't picky, can extend your lens reach into the longer telephoto range.

What we haven't done is come up with a solution on the ultrawide and fisheye end of things.

The solution here is simple, but few photographers starting out in the 1990s know about these tricks. The solution lies in some adapters.

180 Degree Circular Image Fisheye Adapter

The above fisheye adapter mounts on the front of your normal lens (35mm or 50mm). It just screws into your lens filter threads, sometimes requiring an adapter to fit your lens filter threads (e.g. Series VII to 52mm adapter). The fisheye adapter is relatively low cost ($50-100 US) and adapters are even cheaper ($10 US up).

Using this lens, you get a true 180 degree circular fisheye image on film. See fisheye photos for examples. Your $50-100 fisheye adapter isn't quite as good as the prime OEM fisheye, but it is a whole lot cheaper. Stopped down, it can deliver very satisfying results.

One of the wierd and unusual things you can do with this fisheye adapter is use it on a series of lenses, from 300mm down to 28mm. Simply multiply the lens focal length by 0.18 to get the equivalent fisheye effect. On a 105mm lens, you will get roughly an 18mm ultra-wide effect, with considerable distortion and possibly some vignetting. Your 50mm becomes the equivalent of a 9mm circular 180 degree fisheye (50mm x .18 = 9mm). Got the idea?

So this fisheye adapter is in some ways an inverse 2X telephoto converter.

Is there the equivalent of a 1.4X teleconverter on the wide side too?

Superwide 0.42X Wide Angle Adapter

There is a super-wide adapter that multiplies your lenses by 0.42x. Using such as superwide adapter means you can convert your 50mm lens into a superwide 21mm equivalent combination (50mm x .42 = 21mm). Your 35mm prime lens becomes a 15mm equivalent optic, albeit with lots more distortion.

Good News! This superwide adapter can often be purchased used for $25-50 US, sometimes less.

Greg Erker has a neat page showing some superwide adapter photos and comparisons with more rectilinear prime and zoom lenses.

One thing you will note from the above page is that the wide angle distortion of these adapters is different from the much more expensive prime lenses. But if you want this kind of image, these adapters are the only way to get it. So if you do add very wide and ultrawide lenses to your kit, you will probably want to keep these adapters for their unique effects. If you don't like the effect, you can usually sell the adapters for about what you paid for them. You can't beat that!

Extending Capabilities

Once you have used your zoom or a few lenses for awhile, you will begin to develop specialty interests. As you read, you will learn that certain lenses are considered mandatory for doing such work.

Like many folks, I started out with a 35mm SLR camera (a Topcon IC1!) which had a normal 50mm lens. I experimented with some closeup lenses to get some neat and satisfying closeup photographs.

Later, I got a Nikkormat 35mm SLR. For my normal lens, I used a very sharp 55mm f/3.5 macro lens (a micro-nikkor). This lens let me do a whole lot of macrophotograpy, down to 1:2 with the lens and 1:1 with its extension tube.

Some years later, in studying some photography books, I discovered that I hadn't any experience with handheld available light photography. Since I usually shot slow daylight color slide film, with an f/3.5 normal lens, this realization shouldn't be too surprising. I had a number of time-exposure shots, but nothing gritty and handheld at all.

You guessed it. I had an excuse to buy a much faster 50mm f/1.4 lens. For under $50, I suddenly had the capability to take these kinds of photographs.

This case study is offered in the hopes it will encourage you to sit down and examine your own photography efforts. What kinds of photographs are you missing out on? Is there some factor in your equipment that is limiting you from doing something you want to do? Can you remedy this deficiency inexpensively? Is there an alternative such as a teleconverter or fisheye adapter that will let you try out this kind of photography for low bucks?

Alternating Speeds

As a general rule of thumb, there are slow, average, and fast prime lenses. Jumping from an average speed to a fast prime will often cost you double or even triple the cost for that extra stop of speed! So, do you need the speed?

The above table is somewhat arbitrary, but is loosely based on the Listing of 1600+ Third Party Lenses (by focal length). While you can find some faster lenses, the prices are usually well over two or three times the cost of the average speed lenses.

Where to put the speed? Does every one of your lenses have to come from the fastest category? If not, which lenses should be the fast ones? The harder question might be which ones can be slow?

Again, you can play some trade-offs here and win some nifty benefits.

Remember our chart showing how one lens sequence used with a teleconverter only yielded one extra focal length (at the end)? The other series provided double the number of focal lengths using your 2X teleconverter.

One unsung advantage of the teleconverter approach is that you can save some weight in your bag too. For example, suppose you buy one of our cult classic Vivitar 135mm f/2.3 early series I telephoto lenses. These 135mm lenses are out of favor, and an odd f/2.3 one is even harder to get sell. Now using a 1.4X gives you 190mm at f/3.2, or a 2X will yield 270mm at f/4.6. Now a 200mm f/3.5 is decent, so a 190mm f/3.2 is even better. Similarly, a 270mm f/4.6 isn't bad either. So one moderately fast lens and a teleconverter can give you another relatively fast and handy lens too.

On the other hand, if you get a fast 300mm f/2.8, you will get an a still fast 420mm f/4 using a 1.4X or a 600mm f/5.6 using the 2X teleconverter. This combination might be great if you are doing a lot of backwoods wildlife and bird photography. But for most of us, the 420mm and 600mm focal lengths would be very rarely used.

Another subtletly is that a fast 135mm f/2.3 lens is still relatively small physically, requiring 59mm+ of glass. A 200mm f/2.3 lens puts you into 87mm of glass. Obviously, getting a faster short telephoto is lighter and cheaper than a long equally fast one of the same quality.

Another problem to be aware of impacts autofocus users. Many cameras won't work well with longer focal length lenses that are slow. So if you have such an autofocus setup, you need to be sure that your camera will work with slower speed lenses. This requirement particularly impacts zoom lenses at the long ends of their range too.

On very wide angle lenses, you will find most of the affordable ones are relatively slow, with few exceptions. Speed is pretty handy in a wide angle lens for focusing, since it is much harder to focus a wide angle lens accurately, especially in low light conditions. Only a few wide angle lenses under f/2 such as f/1.4s are offered by third party lens makers, and the OEM ones are quite pricey too.

The lowest cost wide angle lenses are understandably 35mm f/2 or faster lenses. These lenses actually make pretty good normal lenses too. The lenses are relatively light, unlike some of the much larger and heavier very wide and ultra-wide lenses.

Alternating Speeds

One approach I recommend is alternating speeds. What if you have a fast 35mm f/2 lens (because they are relatively cheap and replace a normal lens too). You can use a smaller, lighter and slower 28mm f/3.5. But for your next step down, you want a faster 24mm f/2.8 or possibly an f/2.5 or the Kiron or Vivitar 24mm f/2 lenses (see Table listing lenses by focal length for more ideas). The third party speedy lenses are relatively much less than a fast 24mm OEM lens. After all, 24mm is outside our magic 28 to 200mm popular lens range. Below 24mm, you generally have few choices and most of them are slower f3.5 or f3.8 lenses. Very wide zooms are usually slow and cheap (f3.5 or f4.0) or faster and very, very, very expensive (e.g., 20-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor Ouch!).

The same alternating speeds approach works above 50mm too. You might want to get a fast 85mm f/1.8 or f/2 as they are relatively low cost (Hint: avoid the Jupiter 85mm f/2 unless you can test the older ones out!). Your 100mm or 105mm could be an average speed f/2.5 lens. Your 135mm lens could be a faster f/2.5 or f/2.3 lens. Using the popular Vivitar telephotos, you could get a surprisingly sharp 200mm f/3.5 lens for under $50 US.

Perhaps you want more speed for use with a teleconverter, and decide to get the 200mm f/3 Vivitar Series I or a Sigma 200mm f/2.8. Compared to a 300mm f/2.8, prices seem quite reasonable. Now your 300mm lens could be a relatively modest size, weight, and cost Sigma 300mm f/4 APO macro lens. If weight is a problem, a 1.4X teleconverter and your 200mm f/3 Vivitar provide a nearly as fast 280mm f/4.2.

As we stated in the beginning, which of these patterns best fits your needs and budgets is a question for you to ponder in light of your personal style of photography and personal budget too.

Another point is that once you decide on this pattern, you can acquire your kit in the most useful, or least painful manner. If you decide on a fast and slow alternating approach, you can start off buying the cheaper and easier to find slower lenses. Saving your pennies, you can be on the lookout for a faster lens on your list. In the meantime, you will have every other focal length covered, and be able to do many photographs with your slower speed lenses in the interim.

Ideal Kit?

Based on the teleconverter chart, and my own experience, I would define an ideal camera lens kit (based on primes). See if you agree or disagree with my logic, and why.

People normally (pun intended) start out with the 50mm lens. Since the 35mm is pretty similar (albeit 1.4x linear and 2X area coverage), they opt to buy a 28mm. They skip the 85mm as too close to 50mm, and so buy the 105mm lens. Then they skip 135mm as too close to 105mm, and go for 200mm. Now they add a 2X teleconverter to really add legs to their 200mm. As we have seen in the 2X teleconverter table above, they would only be gaining a relatively rarely used 400mm capability.

Start by ignoring your 50mm lens.

Now you can buy that 35mm wide angle, and make it a fast one too. You now can skip 28mm and go for an average speed 24mm f/2.8. Most of us would agree that this is where the really wide action gets really interesting. The 85mm f/2 can be relatively inexpensive for a fast lens too. Similarly, you can get a decent 135mm f/2.8 or perhaps a third party f/2.5 or even f/2.3 speed lens cheaply. A 200mm f3.5 or the Vivitar f/3 or even a f/2.8 isn't that expensive either. Now throw in both a 1.4X and 2X teleconverter.

You started with kit#2's 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm lenses. Your 2X adds 48mm, 70mm, 170mm, 270mm, and 400mm. Your 1.4X adds (35), (50), 120mm, (190mm), and (280mm). In this case, you might consider that 120mm so close to 135mm that it isn't worth packing or buying a 1.4X just for that?

The above logic illustrates some ideas for how to build up and carry a kit of lenses in your camera bag. Notice that if we had picked the more usual pattern of kit#1 (50mm lens), we would be better off with the 1.4X teleconverter in this case.

Since kit#2 offers the chance to buy relatively low cost fast 35mm and 85mm lenses of f/2 speed or faster (along with a fast 50mm lens you've ignored so far), this kit offers a lot of available light capability with these prime lenses.

If you do keep that fast 50mm normal lens, it will become a handy 100mm portrait lens with your 2X.

Now you are carrying 24 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.7, 85 f2, 135 f2.3 and 200mm f3 plus your 2X, which is providing 70 f4, 100 f3.4, 170 f4, 270 f4.6, and 400mm f6 in this example.

With that .18x fisheye adapter, you get 15mm (85mm), 9mm (50mm), and 6mm (35mm) fisheye effects for another $50-100 US. If you don't like fisheyes, the 0.42X superwide adapter will give you 21mm (50) and 15mm (35) options for about $25-50 US. Interesting, huh?

So with six lenses, a 2X, and that superwide adapter, you get 15mm, 21mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 170mm, 200mm, 270mm, and 400mm. Add the fisheye adapter (for $50-100 US) and you get an interesting 6mm, 9mm, and 15mm fisheye effect too. Wow! That's a lot of coverage for half a dozen lenses and some low cost adapters and a 2X.

Summary

My point here hasn't been for me to decide what lenses or combinations are best for you. What I hope you will take away is the realization that by sitting down and planning your lens purchasing goals, you can reap real benefits. Too many people let that cheap 50mm lens on their camera define which lenses they buy. Don't! Start by ignoring the one lens you have got. Now which lens should you get to achieve your photographic goals?

From: "Anthony Nardelli" anardelli@sprint.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to choose a series of the lens.
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999

When purchasing lenses, you should have a clear photographic objective mind. It sounds like you are trying to build a well rounded 35mm system as an enthusiast so I'll be as general (and cost effective) as possible. Since I am most familiar with the Nikon system, I will Nikkors as examples.

One Lens

A 28-105mm lens. The Nikkor 28-105mm 3.5 AF-D gives you wide angle to short telephoto (with 1:2 macro capability) in one lens. Avoid lenses like the 28-200mm they tend to be too much of an optical compromise.

Two Lenses

A 28-105mm lens and 50mm lens. The Nikkor 50mm 1.4 AF-D is fast, very sharp,contrasty and great for low light situations. The Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF is slower than the 50mm 1.4 and has no D chip but is equally (if not more) sharp and is quite inexpensive.

Three Lenses

A 28-105mm lens, 50mm lens and 70-300mm lens. The Nikkor 70-300mm 3.5 AF-D ED, with its ED element, will give you good mid to long telephoto performance for it's price. You will now be able to cover a very wide variety of focal ranges.

Four Lenses

A 28-105mm lens, 70-300mm lens, 50mm lens and 85mm lens. The Nikkor 85mm 1.4 AF-D is fast, very sharp and is a wonderful portrait lens. The Nikkor 85mm 1.8 is slightly slower than the 85mm 1.4 AF-D but is also sharp and more cost effective. Five Lenses

A 28-105mm lens, 70-300mm lens, 50mm lens, 85mm lens and 20mm lens. The Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AF-D is a very wide angle lens and is quite sharp as well as rectilinear corrected and has CRC (Close Range Correction). This lens is great of shooting buildings, cityscapes and for other extra wide angle purposes.

Six Lenses

Buy a 28-105mm lens, 70-300mm lens, 50mm lens, 85mm lens, 20mm lens and 60mm Micro (Macro) lens. The Nikkor 60mm 2.8 AF-D is a very sharp, contrasty and relatively inexpensive Micro (Macro) lens that give you true 1:1 macro reproduction capability. It has CRC (Close Range Correction) and is easily mounted on bellows.

As you can see, the above examples are for those on a more restrained budget. If you have unlimited cash then you may wish to consider other (expensive) purchases. An example would be replacing the Nikkor 70-300mm 3.5 AF-D ED with a Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D (or AF-S) ED-IF.

Avoid strict reliance on zoom lenses. While very convenient and optically good, today's zoom lenses are still prone to lens flare with their additional elements (even with a hood) and require more correction for aberrations. Primes are generally sharper, faster and less bulky (unless you are carrying a dozen of them, oomph!!). Zoom lenses play a role in providing convenience and maximum photographic versatility. Primes tend have dedicated uses or perform better at a single function (I.e. 85mm AF-D as a portrait lens).

Try to follow the logic established above and you should have a system that will cover just above ever possible photographic opportunity.

I hope this helps.

--
Anthony Nardelli
Snapshot Photographic Services

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
From: Lisa Horton geek@gatorgames.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: I tried the non-zoom kit:)

A few weeks ago a number of people here were quite helpful to me in choosing and assembling a small kit of non-zoom lenses. The goal was to get a kit offering better quality and more speed than consumer zooms but still small and light.

Well, I got a chance to give it a good workout this last weekend at one of my favorite holiday events a living history recreation of Victorian Christmases called the Dickens Faire. Lighting levels generally range from bad to worse and the venue this year included the added delight of truly ugly yellow/green overhead lights. But using the pop-up flash at -1 stop helped considerably with the color cast without being obvious in the photos.

Two thoughts struck me as I reviewed the days shooting and the results: In low light, there's nothing like fast lenses! The other was that I was changing lenses a LOT. I was glad that I'd practiced:)

I took the minimal kit, 28/2.8, 85/1.8 and a 1.4x TC. One lens was always on the camera of course, and the other two items stowed in my purse, so No Camera Bag:)

I was pleased with the results. They're not as sharp as if I was using a tripod or even a monopod of course, but that simply wasn't practical.

I think my consumer zooms are going to be getting a LOT less use now:)

You can see some of the results at

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1356767&a;=10422218

Lisa

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
From: "Kheehua" hungkh@singnet.com.sg
Subject: OT - Interesting Focal Length Progession

Hi, members. I remember what someone (barry Twycross?) in the old MML said about focal length nos. and been thinking about it yesterday. Ever wonder why we have 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100 mm, 135 mm lenses?

Start from the normal lens 50mm and the no. 1.4142 (sq. root of 2). Multiply 50 mm by 1.4142 and so on up. Divide 50 mm by 1.4142 down. We will get:

17   24   35   50  70  100   140  200  282  400

A pretty familiar sequence of focal lengths. Except 140 could be 135 mm. 282 could be 300mm. Is that why sometimes 28mm is said to be neither here nor there lens?

Thinking further, light intensity varies as the square of the distance. Since we use sq. root 2 to get the above sequence, given the same aperture no, it seems that the viewfinder image of a scene from a 100 mm lens would be dimmer by 4X (100/50 x 100/50) than when using a 50 mm. Or generally the vf image is brighter when using wider angle lens (smaller focal length) and dimmer when using longer lens.

Calculating the angle of view (in degrees) , I got the following:

f         1     24    35    50    70   100   135    200  300  400    600
angle    104    84    63    47    34    24    18     12    8    6      4

It is interesting to note that for f between 35 mm to 400 mm, the product f x angle is about 2300 average. Meaning given a lens focal length 50mm, angle is 2300/50=46, 70mm, angle of view aprrox 2300/70=33 deg, 200 mm is 2300/200=12, pretty close approx.

Have you wondered why Minolta (on topic) has got 58 mm normal lens? Try multiplying 28mm and get the series 20,28,40,56,82,115.

Cheers!

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001
From: "Franka T LIEU" Franka_L@Pacific.net.hk
Subject: Re: OT - Interesting Focal Length Progession

Actually its probably have a lot more to do with the technical side and Historical matter than anything else.

When Leica introduce the Leica I way back. Its got a 50mm as the only lens available and that establish the 50 as a standard. Likewise, 135 was carried over from plate camera ( 9X12 ) when that focal length is a standard. 75/80/85/100 is a carry over from Medium format. Its much easier to utilize readily available optical train and scale them or simply re-mount to fit different format.

Some other, are more technically oriented. The 18mm is first introduced by Zeiss as a true super wide as it cover 100 degree on the diagonal, but more important it cover a full 90 degree on the horizontal. The 58mm being used as a standard has a similar historical background. To get the lens to clear the mirror, the Mfr have to make do with a longer Focal Length. CZJ first have it in their 58/2.0 Biotar and that probably started the trend.

Note that almost every SLR Mfr has something in the 55/58 range for sometime before the design and technology catch up for them to switch to the "NORMAL" 50mm . Minolta in particular show the limit here by having the 58 and 55 at the same time ( MC rokkor ) before later switching both the 1.4 and 1.7 lens to 50mm. But still the 1.2 lens will have to wait for better Glass and end up in 50mm as an MD.

Most of the longer focal length are really just carry over from larger format days 135, 180, 210, 300 are all basically NORMAL for plate and large format cameras

The only series of focal length that is truly 'Angle of Coverage" driven are those of the Wide angle type. 35mm has an area covergae roughly double of that of a 50.

.... Snipped

>
> Have you wondered why Minolta (on topic) has got 58 mm normal lens? Try
> multiplying 28mm and get the series 20,28,40,56,82,115.
>
> Cheers!

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
To: Kheehua Hung hungkh@singnet.com.sg
Subject: Re: Lens focal lengths and selection of lens kits

Hi Khee ;-)

thanks for your note - glad you enjoyed the resources, it is a shared effort; yes, you are right, you need to check lenses stopped to same aperture, esp with wide open metering system as on most minolta SLRs. there can also be a bit of difference between the f/stop and t/stop - transmission stop, as some zoom lenses can lose up to half a stop due to many elements, so they are f/5.6 marked, but only f/6.3 or so in light to film

my understanding of the 58mm is that it was selected to work so that you could look thru the camera with one eye, look to side with second eye, and the effect of 58mm and the early SR magnification ratio yielded a similar scene. Folks used to do this so they could detect folks closing their eyes during exposure (which you can do in a rangefinder as they were used to doing). But that was quickly dropped as a requirement, and lenses have gotten wider for standard lenses as they became easier to make too (also 58mm is a bit easier to provide clearance for swinging mirror etc., easier to make etc).

I wish I could do the research and effort to document every tip or pointer, but that is impossible; now that dejanews is gone (google.com), and never let you search mailing lists anyway (many of which have no archives), these resources are getting more valuable. Lots of opinions, hopefully some good ideas and tips and useful info, and folks have to use their common sense and consider the sources too ;-) ;-) But that's USENET!

regards bobm

[Ed. note: thanks to Jerry for sharing these notes and tips on lens selection!]
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 
From: "Gerald W. Crum" gwcrum@apk.net
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Lens Kits

In older Pentax literature, they used to give suggestions for 1, 2, 3 lens
kits.  But that was in the very early days of zooms.  A popular travel setup
was the 35 f/2 and an 85 f/2.  I tried that with a multiplier, and it took
great pictures, but I was constantly fumbling with lenses.  Cartier-Bresson
was right about the 35 mm, though.   More recently (10 years ago) I switched
to a Nikon system. and found the 35 f/2 and a 75-150 f/3.5 zoom to be a very
useful system.  Add a 1.5 x multiplier and it goes to 225 mm.  I don't miss
the gap between 35 and 75 mm, nor do I miss the 28 mm.  Although if you are
going to shoot a wedding, it is a gap in the wrong place, and there you also
need more width.   A 28-105 f/2.8-3.8 works out very well.  I guess
Cartier-Bresson didn't cover weddings.  I don't either, at least not
professionally.

But for most things the 35/ 75-150/1.5x are a 95% solution.  Maybe even more
with the addition of a Nikon 3T close up lens for the 75-150.  Makes a great
macro for nature subjects and still life with convenient working distances.
Nice light and compact system for travel.  Of course, I also carry a couple
of point and shoots on vacation trips; so in that activity the 35 to 75 mm
gap is covered by the zoom, and there is a wider angle P&S; as well.

Regards,

Jerry C



From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002
From: "bruce_a_conklin" bruce_conklin_99@hotmail.com
Subject: 35mm vs. 28mm

Hi Gang,

I have been an ardent user of a 35mm lens as my "normal lens" for
years (decades?).  But I find myself thinking about changing
my "style".  I have rediscovered how useful the 50mm can be (yes,
even old dogs can learn new tricks), and the 50mm and 35mm are too
close in coverage to use side-by-side.  So I am thinking of switching
my "normal" to 28mm.

Do any of you use the 28mm as your normal working lens?  Do you have
any suggestions or comments to offer on why you have made that choice?

Thank you in advance for all of your input.  This is a great list and
I appreciate how civil everyone is.

Bruce Conklin
Sacramento




From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 
From: Josef Brugger jbrugger@pcez.com
Subject: Re: 35mm vs. 28mm


Bruce,

I used a 28 in conjunction with an 85 for several years and it never felt
quite wide enough to me; found myself inching back all the time. Up close
and less than square, it was more awkward than dramatic.
A 35 feels like an unfiltered, or uninterpreted point of view, in a great
variety of situations and the other ends of the kit are now a 24 and a 50.
The 50 is nice for picking out details and people shots; the 24 is for
landscapes and townscapes. The 24/2.8 AIS Nikkor is a bargain new at the
moment.
Angles of view are more helpful to me than focal lengths.
24 = 84 degrees
28 = 74
35 = 62
50 = 46
85 = 28.5

Joe



From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 
From: "Charles Thorsten" cthorsten@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: 35mm vs. 28mm

Personally, I've never really been comfortable with the 28mm.
It's always been either too wide or not wide enough.  The
35mm focal length is more natural for me for people shots,
because they're still big enough in the frame that I can watch
expressions change.  The wider the lens, the smaller the people
in the viewfinder and thus the harder it is to see what they're
doing.  But that's just me.  I'm a 24-35-105 kinda guy.

-Charlie



From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 
From: Josh Snitkoff snitkoja@alfred.edu
Subject: Re: 35mm vs. 28mm

Having used both a 28 and a 24 as prime lenses, I definitely prefer the 24,
the difference in coverage is quiet a bit.  Generally I use a 50mm as my
lens that lives on the camera and gets kicked around.

Josh


From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: AW: What Primes?

Hi,

as this thread develops more and more into equipment-listing, I'm going to
contribute:

my primes:

Sigma 3,5/18mm
Sigma 2,8/24mm
Minolta 2,8/28mm
Minolta 1,4/50mm
Sigma 2,8/90mm Macro
Minolta 4/200mm Macro
Minolta 8/500mm Reflex

My zooms:

Minolta 3,5-4,5/24-85mm
Sigma 2,8/28-70mm (pre EX)
Minolta 4/35-70mm
Minolta 4/70-210mm

I have to admit, that this list is only in part a result of  intelligent
planing, some lenses I bought, because I couldn't resist a bargain, some
because I couldn't afford a better one at the time. Now my problem is not to
carry everything with my and to pick the appropriate combination for every
trip. According to "Murphy's law" I usually carry much to much with me and
nevertheless miss that lens I would need.

Manfred


From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002
From: "mikelip2002" mlipphardt@ameritech.net
Subject: Re: What Primes?

I can play this game too! :)

Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 135mm f2.8
Minolta 100mm f2
Minolta 85mm f1.4
Vivitar 100mm f3.5 macro
Tokina 17mm

I keep thinking about going longer, but don't have any use for a
longer FFL lens.

Mike



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
From: "dukephoto1" mdcore@aol.com
Subject: RE: LENS COLLECTING

Reading these posts got me to thinking about what I've piled up over
the years.

Sigma 24 2.8 (original manual focus one for the Maxxum 9000)
Minolta 28 2.8
Minolta 50 1.4
Minolta 50 2.8 macro
Minolta 100 2.8 macro
Minolta 135 2.8
Sigma 400 5.6
Spiratone 500 f8

Minolta 20-35
Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8
Minolta 28-85 original
Sigma 75-200 2.8-3.5 (good on my 9000 only)
Minolta 75-300 original
Minolta 100-200 4.5 (Note- do NOT get on Ebay at 2AM after a bunch of
vodka. You WILL wake up owning a lens you never even knew you wanted.
However, I do like the lens).
Minolta 100-400 APO

So far I got the 100 2.8, 20-35, 28-70 Tokina, 100-200 and 100-400 on
Ebay.
I sometimes think about getting rid of the duplicates, but came up
with having two kits- a light weight one with the 24mm, 28-85, 75-
300; and a heavier one with the 20-35, 28-70, 100 macro, 100-400.

I'd say just my $.02- but I think that wouldn't cover my costs.

DUKEPHOTO




Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Choosing Equipment

I personally think that four lenses make up the ideal Hasselblad kit. And
currently (finally) they are all CFE lenses and can be used, in all modes,
on all Hasselblad bodies, sans 202FA.

40CFE, 80CFE, 120CFE, 180CFE.

I have this "kit" and it is awesome! Very evenly spaced focal lengths.
Everything is easily covered. Even macro work. I have 16E & 32E extension
tubes which make the 120 even better! I also have a "Zeiss" 2x extender
which turns the 180 into a 360.

This is a very compact and capable kit for any Hasselblad body. And the
Zeiss 2x extender is unbelievably sharp. I find no sign of image degradation.

Jim

Patrick Bartek wrote:

>Why 4 lenses?  Most amateurs and pros alike do well with 3 -- 50, 80,
>150.  However, for me the 80 was a useless focal length.  I chose the
>SWC, 60, and 150 for my basic system; and it handles 99% of the jobs
>I've shot with it in my 30 years as a commercial photographer.  For
>that remaining 1%, I just borrow or rent what I need.     


Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Choosing Equipment

 Jim Brick wrote:
> I personally think that four lenses make up the ideal Hasselblad kit.
> And currently (finally) they are all CFE lenses and can be used, in
> all modes, on all Hasselblad bodies, sans 202FA.
>
> 40CFE, 80CFE, 120CFE, 180CFE.

Well, to each, his own.  The first 6x6 I had (Mamiya C220) came with an
80.  It just didn't work for me just like the 50 on 35mm.  It was   
either not long enough or not wide enough for what I needed to do.  As
a "normal" lens, it failed miserably.  So, when I moved up to
Hasselblad, I chose the 60 as /my/ "normal."

As to the 120:  Great lens; but I don't do that much macro.  And it's
too short for portraits and such, at least for me.  When I do a basic
head and shoulder setup, the camera-subject distance is too short as
well.

RE: the 180.  Since I find the 150 a little long, the 180 is way too
long for what I would use it for.  When I had the Mamiya, I found the
135 lens to be the perfect medium length lens.  Just the right working
distances for head shots, 3/4 and full lengths.  I shot a lot of
magazine covers with that lens.  With a 150 on the 'Blad, however, I
have to take a giant step or two backwards to get the right field of
view.  Would have loved to have the 135 in focusing mount for the
'Blad.  Also, it would mesh nicely with my 60.  The spacing between the
60 and 150 is a little too wide for my tastes.


> I have this "kit" and it is awesome! Very evenly spaced focal
> lengths. Everything is easily covered. Even macro work. I have 16E &
> 32E extension tubes which make the 120 even better! I also have a
> "Zeiss" 2x extender which turns the 180 into a 360.

Great, if you do a lot of macro.  I rarely do any.

For a long lens, I'd rather have a 500.  I don't need a lens in the 200
to 350 range.  When I need a long lens, I need a very long lens.

> This is a very compact and capable kit for any Hasselblad body. And
> the Zeiss 2x extender is unbelievably sharp. I find no sign of image
> degradation. 

I agree.  The Zeiss 2X is without peer.

FWIW, my little 3 lens outfit -- SWC, 60, 150, 2 500 bodies, 4 12
magazines, pro-shade, and a few do-dads -- fits snugly in a 13" x 7" x
9" (high) padded, soft "bag" with two outside pockets.  The bag also
fits easily under an aircraft seat, and I still have room on either
side of it for my size 13 feet!

>
>  Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >Why 4 lenses?  Most amateurs and pros alike do well with 3 -- 50,
> > 80, 150.  However, for me the 80 was a useless focal length.  I
> > chose the SWC, 60, and 150 for my basic system; and it handles 99%
> > of the jobs I've shot with it in my 30 years as a commercial
> > photographer.  For that remaining 1%, I just borrow or rent what I
> > need.

--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net


From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 
From: "Tim Atherton" tim@KairosPhoto.com
Subject: RE: [Leica] [leica] Roger Hicks and the 21+35+90 combo?

+ price pays a factor - as always - determining results and usage. a 28/35 -
50 - 90 combination could be seen as very popular, because it's a darn sight
cheaper than anything with a 21/24/75 in it...

Same could be said for weight and bulk

tim



From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Which Nikkors do I need in my set?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
...

Here's the "Rules of Thumb" I learned years ago for picking a selection
of fixed focal lenses that will provide the most range with the least
amount of lenses, and therefore cost:

   1.  Lenses shorter than your personal "normal" should be spaced
around 20 degrees horizontal angle of view apart;

   2.  Lenses longer than your "normal" should be spaced about twice
the focal length of the preceeding lens.

Your little selection of a 28, 50, and 105 follow these guidelines,
more or less.  (These are guidelines, remember, not gospel.)

So, you next wide angle should be 20 degrees wider than the 28, which
has an angle of view of 65 degrees horizontal, so you'll want an 85
degree lens.  That would be around a 20mm, which has an 84 degree angle
of view.   The next, 104 degrees, which would be a 14mm.

For your next telephoto, a 200 would be the choice, but you if you need
a "fast" 200 and there's not one, you could opt for the 180 f2.8.
There's not much difference in the angle of view between the 180 and a
200.  And so forth. . . .

When picking your arsenal of lenses, you have to take into account what
you'll be shooting and what you like to shoot.  For example, if you are
mainly a portraitist, you won't need lenses much longer than 200 or
wider than 28.  If you are a wildlife photographer, you'll need very
long lenses and rarely, if ever, a wide angle.  A 200 with wildlife is
a "normal" to "wide angle" lens.  I find a fast 400 to 600 to be good
general purpose lenses for shooting animals in the wild or in a zoo,
and versatile, if coupled with a matched 1.4x or 2x extender.

Here's my lens "kit."  I've been shooting with it professionally for 24
years, and it handles 98% of everything I've been called on to shoot as
a general commercial photographer.  All are AI Nikkors.

   24 f2.8
   35 f2.0
   50 f1.4
   85 f2.0
   180 f2.8
   TC-200 2x extender (used exclusively on the 180)

I rent or borrow, if a job calls for a lens I don't have.  I have 3
FM2n bodies (Replaced the original FM bodies that wore out after 20
years.) with motor drives, plus various ancilliary do-dads.

With my setup, I've never experienced a "gap" in my coverage.

I try not to have lenses that are too close together in focal length,
unless it's a specialty lens like a maco.  As you can see, I don't own
a macro.  I rarely do any macro work, but when I do, I use either a
closeup lens or extension tubes.  I see no reason to have an 85, 105
and 105 micro.  Waste of money.  Just pick one and let it do for all.

No reason to have a 24 AND a 28.  They are only 10 degrees apart in
angle of view.  Like a giant step's worth.  Waste of money to have
both.

Later. . . .

--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com



From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: MOST WANTED : (honest) first hand accounts of travel photography with an Hasselblad (or equivalent) system
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002

andrea wrote:

> If one has a 4 lenses system on Hasselblad + some 35mm gear, is this
> really manageable when you travel alone, for pleasure?
> Can you actually afford to change format and lense easily and rapidly in
> travel situations?

Why would anyone carry both? I can't imagine trying to carry a medformat
kit and 35mm gear and actually enjoy doing it!

Also in travel use, you may need to use things like teleconverters instead
of carrying multiple optics/shutters etc. I know I'd never haul all of my
kiev/pentacon optics anywhere from a weight standpoint ! Also given I'm
using cheaper gear/optics, if someone did steal it, I wouldn't risk my life
trying to stop them like a 'blad user might be tempted to do  8-)

One kit I use is a 50mm f4,  an 80mm, a 1.4X, a 2X and a 250 f5.6. This all
fits in a fairly small case with room for film/meter and I carry the camera
with a WLF and the 80 over my shoulder so I can grab a shot if I need to.
I always carry a monopod and sometimes a tripod if I can so yes it is
slower than shapping shots with a 35mm zoom camera, but that's not what I'm
interested in shooting.

For lighter weight I sometimes use a 65mm f3.5 and a 120mm f2.8 two lens
kit. Smaller case and it's easy to swap lenses if I need to, plus again
room for some film/meter.

Other times I may carry a 30mm f3.5 and a 45mm f3.5 plus maybe the 80.

If you need a light travel medformat there are other options like the old
folders or some of the fuji rangefinders.

Yes to get the quality of the larger format, you will be slowed down and
weighed down. If this bothers you, stick to 35mm and the resultant quality
loss. I've never been pissed I took my med format but I have been pissed
 that I left it at home and used 35mm instead when viewing the results.
--
Stacey


From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
From: "Mark Vints" mark.vints@skynet.be
Subject: Re: Re: wide angle lens & too many lenses

> My basic kit is a 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 AI, 105mm "-C" f/2.5 AI'd

> (This is a shift from years-long habit of carrying 24-35-105 as my
> basic lens selection.  My subject matter shifted to be mostly my kids
> now).


That's an interesting comment, Bruce.
Could you elaborate on how 24-35-105 treats a different subject matter than
does 28-50-105.

I myself have a 28-50-85-180 set and I keep telling myself that 24-35-85-180
would make much more sense because of the better spread in focal lengths and
also because it would allow a super-compact two-lens 35-85 set as a minimal
travelling set. I'd never have just a two lens set out of my current crop, 28
being too far from 85 and 50 too close. No really, I have no arguments for
holding on to my current set, except unfortunately that I really like the 50 mm
focal length (have a 50/2 AI and a 50/1.4 AIS, had 50/1.8AF, 55/2.8 and 50/1.4AI
previously), find my 28/2.0 AI to be an excellent peformer that I'd hate to
loose, and appreciate the 85/2.0 AI for its small size ...:-)

Mark

End of Page