I just recently started shooting about 6 months ago. I bought a Nikon N80 which came with your typical Nikon AF 28-80 & 70-300 zoom lenses. Neither of them are fast, as you can imagine. I also just recently started a new job which pays fairly well and I don't have any bills to speak of so I plan on buying some new lenses. I'm no Bill Gates so I can't fork over $7000.00 for a 800mm telephoto but I would like some faster more versatile lenses than the ones I have. I thought of buying a 105 2.8 macro, 20 2.8 wide angle, 180 2.8 and either a 50 1.4 or a fast zoom 35-75 2.8. I'm not sure which of these would be better. I'm hoping this selection would cover most if not all of my bases, but I may just be way off, I don't know. I plan on shooting for as long as I can hold a camera up to my face so I'd like to get a comprehensive group of lenses together that will last me a long time. Any help you can give is greatly appreciated.

-- Morgan Moroni (morgan_moroni@hotmail.com), April 20, 2001

Answers

If you are really rich, you should go for a nice set of zooms: 20-35/2.8, 35-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8. I have tried all three during the Easter vacation (my rich aunt owns them all, and more), and they are fabulous. High-quality zooms are wonderful to work with.

I often find that in extremely low light conditions, the two extra stops of the 50/1.4 still isn't fast enough with ISO 400 film. But it is still a very good lens that I use all the time.

(The real solution here is to get one of those ancient Nikon pre F-mount bodies and a 50/1.0 or 50/0.8 lens.)

-- Guan Yang (guan@unicast.org), April 20, 2001.

I understand the desire to build a stable of lenses for every possible situation, and even initially tried this approach when starting out. I would ask myself, what kind of images do I want to produce?-- For me, that meant faster and wider lenses. For someone doing nature stuff, It might mean longer-- I tried a mix of fast zooms and primes, and found that my longer lenses sat untouched and my zooms were almost always used at one end of their range-- so I sold them. I think the primes you list are a great set-- I keep my 50 1.4 mounted on my second body all the time. You cant go wrong with the 20 or the 105 either. Pick up lenses as you have the need for them. Film is a lot less expensive, and often a more productive investment. Good Luck!

-- Marke D. Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), April 21, 2001.

If money's no object, get a 20-35mm f/2.8 (or better still, the 17- 35mm f/2.8), a 35-70mm f/2.8 (which has a small macro function at 35mm) and keep your 70-300mm, and you'll have all useful focal lengths covered. I'm using the 20-35/2.8 and the 35-70/2.8, and I can tell you that they are good! From my experience, don't get a 50mm; I had both the f/1.8 and f/1.4 versions but I didn't find it useful at all. The 20mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens, but it's just never as convenient as a zoom, and, as you may have already found out, it's a pain to have to keep changing lenses. You also may want to keep the number of lenses to the minimum; you can't possibly carry so many lenses at once--three is really quite enough.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), April 21, 2001.

I would stay away from zooms, they are "convenient" but does nothing to help with your skills in composition and image making......better to zoom with your feet.

I would suggest 24 2.8 wide angle, 35 2.0, 85 1.8, 180 2.8 and perhaps 60mm macro to round off your set. (all fantastically sharp)

Remember, part of the point of an SLR is the ability to change lenses and take advantage of the optics!!

Tommy

-- Tommy Chung (dr_tommychung@hotmail.com), April 22, 2001.

Remember, part of the point of an SLR is the ability to change lenses and take advantage of the optics!!

That's the point of a interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera, such as a Leica. The biggest advantage of a SLR camera is that it allows you to mount a zoom lens and see the zoom effect directly through the lens. A rangefinder camera will not allow you to do that.

One of the greatest drawbacks of interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras is their inability to use a zoom lens. This is due to technical difficulties in making a compact viewfinder system that can be coupled to the zoom lens and allows the photographer to see as he/she zooms. To date, the one and only production zoom lens used in an interrangefinder-camera is the Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* 35-70mm for the Contax G2 camera. And this is possible because of the use of a lens-coupled electro-mechanical viewfinder system. Even then, the zoom effect you see in the veiwfinder is only an approximation of what the lens actually 'sees.' For the mechanical Leica camera, there is the Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50mm 'zoom' lens, which is actually a lens with three different focal-length settings instead of a true zoom lens. There is yet to be a super wide-angle zoom lens, like a 20-35mm, or a long telephoto zoom lens, like a 70-300mm, for an interchangeable-lens rangefinder camera.

There is a common view that a zoom lens (or an electronic camera with an all-auto program mode) tends to make one lazy and doesn't help in developing one's photographic skill, blah blah blah. Such a perception probably stemmed from photographic schools whose basic courses encourage the use of prime lenses (and mechanical cameras with the most basic features) in order to make students better understand the fundamentals of photography. A zoom lens is actually indifferent to the development of one's photographic skill, but, in experienced hands, it can be an extremely versatile tool for composing and capturing pictures quickly without having to 'zoom with your feet'. This is why zoom lenses are particularly popular among photo-journalists. Furthermore, in certain photographic situations, such as widelife and bird photography, in which the position of the photo subject is quite unpredictable, using a zoom lens is the only way to get the desired pictures without a lot of frustrations and missed opportunities.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), April 22, 2001.

If I were in the same position: I would buy a 80-200/2.8AFD, a 17-35/2.8AFS and a 50/1.4. These lenses are great performers and cover most of the needs.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), April 23, 2001.

If you're rich just buy your lenses as required for each project. Duplication be damned!

"Furthermore, in certain photographic situations, such as widelife and bird photography, in which the position of the photo subject is quite unpredictable, using a zoom lens is the only way to get the desired pictures without a lot of frustrations and missed opportunities."

Whatever. Zooms are one compromise. Primes are another.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Too bad you didn't include what you like to shoot, something that just might, possibly have some bearing on what anyone recommends-- though it didn't seem to matter to other posters!? So, Morgan, what interests you?

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), April 23, 2001.

Go for the bare minimum. Lots of amateur photographer have the tendency to "collect" lens. Go with what you REALLY need, dont try to buy yourself a "complete range kit". Buy one lens at the time and see what other focal you wish you had. I use to shoot SLR with a wide range of lenses and finally narrow it down to a Rangefinder and a 35mm f/1.4. I shoot mostly indoors with natural light. What do you shoot and how?

-- Eric Laurence (Edgar1976@hotmail.com), May 27, 2001.