Are three long prime lenses too many?

jcgamble · May 22, 2024

I'm impress how stout all you guys must be! I have a Z9, Z6 II, 100-400, 600 f6.3 and 24-70 f4 in my backpack and that is heavy enough for me to tote around the world. I am a stout guy too. I still own a 500 f5.6 pf in the closet for backup. When I drive I also have a 300 f4 pf and 20 f1.8 in a cube. My daughters and brother have the rest of my older gear.

mdirvin · May 22, 2024

The only one I'm missing is the 800. I have the 600TC, 600 f6.3, 400 TC, and the 400 f4.5. I choose to skip the 800 pf since that could be easily covered with the 600 TC. Probably the least used lens is the 400 f4.5 I prefer to use the 400 TC simply because of the internal TC & it's not that heavy. (Of course there is the whole f2.8 thing). I typically use the two heavier lens with a monopod, the 600 f6.3 is a great walk around lens when just exploring not knowing what you are going to see.

mdirvin · May 22, 2024

jcgamble said:
I'm impress how stout all you guys must be! I have a Z9, Z6 II, 100-400, 600 f6.3 and 24-70 f4 in my backpack and that is heavy enough for me to tote around the world. I am a stout guy too. I still own a 500 f5.6 pf in the closet for backup. When I drive I also have a 300 f4 pf and 20 f1.8 in a cube. My daughters and brother have the rest of my older gear.

I have changed my field techniques. I use to think that I had to carry several lens/camera bodies etc. ( to cover all possible focal lengths) Now I consider the subject & shooting conditions choose a lens that I feel will be appropriate and go with that. I have been pleased to find that there are no issues. I'm not limited on images with only the 400 TC, 600TC, or 600 f6.3 depending on which one I choose to take. There is always more than enough subject material. Sometimes I go the other route. I decide today I feel like using X lens and head out to see what subjects I can find.

Charles Loy · May 22, 2024

How can a man be so selfish as to handle less than three

MatthewK · May 22, 2024

mdirvin said:
I have changed my field techniques. I use to think that I had to carry several lens/camera bodies etc. ( to cover all possible focal lengths) Now I consider the subject & shooting conditions choose a lens that I feel will be appropriate and go with that. I have been pleased to find that there are no issues. I'm not limited on images with only the 400 TC, 600TC, or 600 f6.3 depending on which one I choose to take. There is always more than enough subject material. Sometimes I go the other route. I decide today I feel like using X lens and head out to see what subjects I can find.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

fcotterill · May 23, 2024

RichF said:
I have too many lenses, but my hard core addition (now mostly under control) was camera bags. I was a member of the bag of the month club (or bag of the week club in my worse moments). I had to get on a 12 step program to recover.

Never think I will recover from addiction to lens.

Yes the camera bag addiction is probably as serious as any other category. Of photo gear. I know this all too well.....chasing after the "Perfect Backpack" !
This quest spilled over into ICUs
The cure has been the revelation that I need at least 3 different backpacks, plus a Pelican Air, for different gear kits in situations/trips.

Marcelo_R · May 23, 2024

Only 3?? That's just to begin with!

Krgds, Marcelo

Johan Schmidt · May 23, 2024

fcotterill said:
Yes the camera bag addiction is probably as serious as any other category. Of photo gear. I know this all too well.....chasing after the "Perfect Backpack" !
This quest spilled over into ICUs
The cure has been the revelation that I need at least 3 different backpacks, plus a Pelican Air, for different gear kits in situations/trips.

And 3 sherpas to carry the gear!

Gov · May 23, 2024

To be clear, I was asking about owning three long primes, not carrying three in the field. I generally take only one long prime in the field, often with a shorter zoom on a second camera. Another way to phrase my question is, if I owned all three of these latest lenses (600PF, 800PF, and 600TC) would I regularly use all three? In reviewing the comments and thinking more about it, I think the answer is yes. There are real advantages to owning all three. Each lens has its own strengths and would push creativity in different ways. Having all three would help prevent getting in a rut (tight bird portraits with just the 800, for example). Having all three would allow more choices as my second lens in the field (800PF and 180-600 vs. 600PF and 24-120 for example). Or I could just take the 600TC (two lenses in one). The 600PF would make it more likely that I would take a camera vs no camera at all. Finally, I think there is some pleasure in owning a quality lens, just as a collector enjoys owning whatever is being is collected, if one can afford it. As collectors of camera gear, at least we photographers can make images that bring pleasure to others or encourage people to become more aware of issues such as the preservation of wildlife and natural areas.
Thanks to all who commented.

Paul B · May 25, 2024

Are three long primary lenses too many? I’m doing the research now but I’m thinking the only true limiting factor may be storage space.

EricBowles · May 25, 2024

I'd think about what and where you photograph. You do have a good bit of overlap with those three lenses. Only you can decide whether or not you will use all the prime lenses. All your lenses are sharp, so that's not really a criteria.

I have the 800mm PF, an older 600 f/4 AFS VR, and replaced the 500mm PF with the 400mm f/4.5. I sold my 200-500 and did not replace it with the 180-600. With this combination I have clear preferences based on location, subject matter, and light level.

The 800mm PF is ideal for small birds. It's also good for hard to approach subjects. It's the long lens of choice when you want reach and the ability to handhold. It's very good to ideal for hiking or outings that require walking a mile or two and longer. The long focal length allows you to approach jumpy subjects without pressing them. I use my 800mm PF weekly for small birds. The one disadvantage is it can be too long at times - especially for large mammals or environmental images.

The 600mm TC is the sharpest and fastest. The integrated TC gives it the reach of the 800mm PF. The faster aperture gives you a shallow DOF and clean backgrounds. But you lack the mobility of the 800mm PF or 600mm PF. The 600mm TC is for situations where a tripod and gimbal can be used - usually near your car or at one location for an extended period. I last used my 600mm f/4 for the solar eclipse, but before that it had been a while.

The 600mm PF solves the size and weight problems of the 600mm TC, but there is a lot of overlap with both alternatives. I'd carry the 800mm PF over the 600mm PF for most subjects. Like the 800mm PF, it can be a bit long at times for some subjects but it's not really long enough for small birds. Given that the lens is not the preferred choice for many subjects if you also have the 800mm, it seems to be the most redundant.

You don't have the 400mm f/4.5. I'd consider it in place of the 600mm PF. It gives you a clearer difference between choosing a long and portable lens. With the 600mm TC and 800mm PF (as well as the 180-600), the 400mm is a light, compact alternative that is extremely flexible and potentially part of a two lens solution. It is possible to carry the 800mm PF in a backpack and the 400mm f/4.5 on your camera. When you need the 800mm PF, you simply put the 400mm in the pack in its place. It's a very comfortable kit. You can also use the 400mm f/4.5 with the 1.4 TC if needed.

Pundamilia · May 25, 2024

This is definitely the wrong forum to ask that question!

Gov · May 25, 2024

EricBowles said:
I'd think about what and where you photograph. You do have a good bit of overlap with those three lenses. Only you can decide whether or not you will use all the prime lenses. All your lenses are sharp, so that's not really a criteria.

I have the 800mm PF, an older 600 f/4 AFS VR, and replaced the 500mm PF with the 400mm f/4.5. I sold my 200-500 and did not replace it with the 180-600. With this combination I have clear preferences based on location, subject matter, and light level.

The 800mm PF is ideal for small birds. It's also good for hard to approach subjects. It's the long lens of choice when you want reach and the ability to handhold. It's very good to ideal for hiking or outings that require walking a mile or two and longer. The long focal length allows you to approach jumpy subjects without pressing them. I use my 800mm PF weekly for small birds. The one disadvantage is it can be too long at times - especially for large mammals or environmental images.

The 600mm TC is the sharpest and fastest. The integrated TC gives it the reach of the 800mm PF. The faster aperture gives you a shallow DOF and clean backgrounds. But you lack the mobility of the 800mm PF or 600mm PF. The 600mm TC is for situations where a tripod and gimbal can be used - usually near your car or at one location for an extended period. I last used my 600mm f/4 for the solar eclipse, but before that it had been a while.

The 600mm PF solves the size and weight problems of the 600mm TC, but there is a lot of overlap with both alternatives. I'd carry the 800mm PF over the 600mm PF for most subjects. Like the 800mm PF, it can be a bit long at times for some subjects but it's not really long enough for small birds. Given that the lens is not the preferred choice for many subjects if you also have the 800mm, it seems to be the most redundant.

You don't have the 400mm f/4.5. I'd consider it in place of the 600mm PF. It gives you a clearer difference between choosing a long and portable lens. With the 600mm TC and 800mm PF (as well as the 180-600), the 400mm is a light, compact alternative that is extremely flexible and potentially part of a two lens solution. It is possible to carry the 800mm PF in a backpack and the 400mm f/4.5 on your camera. When you need the 800mm PF, you simply put the 400mm in the pack in its place. It's a very comfortable kit. You can also use the 400mm f/4.5 with the 1.4 TC if needed.

What are your typical subjects with the 400 f4.5? I was looking at the 600PF and 600TC as lenses to take in place of the 800, not as companions to it. Maybe take the 600PF when flying rather than lugging the 800, or taking the 600TC when I had a low light situation. If I got the 400 I would likely use it in place of the 180-600. For a trip to somewhere like Yellowstone, do you think the 800/400 combo would work well? It certainly would be lighter the the 800/180-600 combo and I do prefer primes.

EricBowles · May 25, 2024

Gov said:
What are your typical subjects with the 400 f4.5? I was looking at the 600PF and 600TC as lenses to take in place of the 800, not as companions to it. Maybe take the 600PF when flying rather than lugging the 800, or taking the 600TC when I had a low light situation. If I got the 400 I would likely use it in place of the 180-600. For a trip to somewhere like Yellowstone, do you think the 800/400 combo would work well? It certainly would be lighter the the 800/180-600 combo and I do prefer primes.

The 400mm f/4.5 gives you an extra stop - great for lower light early and late or overcast conditions. I can fit both the 400mm f/4.5 and the 800mm PF in my normal backpack along with the rest of my kit if the lens hoods are packed separately in a checked bag.

Here are a few sample photos using the 400mm f/4.5. I find it's effective for large mammals and places where you are shooting in tight quarters - small gardens or from a canoe at the Okefenokee. I like it for insects because of the way it isolates backgrounds. For equestrian work it's a bit long, but for open areas and for horse racing, it's excellent. It also works well with the 1.4 TC.