Could you live with one prime lens?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

M

MatthewK

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Would you be able to live with a single prime lens? I was perfectly content with shooting solely with the D500 + 500PF for 3 years before making the leap to mirrorless, but now that I have bought into the new system and a few lenses, I find myself wondering if I could go back to a one lens/body setup.

(Disregard that we shoot ILCs, because what’s the point of being able to change lenses and not taking advantage of it, right? Basically, consider this a “desert island, can only take 1” scenario.)

For me and my birding, similar to the D500PF, I think I’d be able to pull it off with the Z8+600PF, but it’d be tough waving goodbye to my 800PF and 186. Obviously a 400TC or 600TC would be ultimate, but I don’t own either and probably never will due to weight and cost.
 
I couldn't or wouldn't want to because I like to shoot different subjects and scenes. Could get it down to maybe one wide angle, one 100mm macro, one 50mm, one 500mm.
 
Member's gallery
If I can take a 1.4x TC with it, I could easily go a whole year with just the Olympus 300mm f4.

I mostly shoot wildlife and insect close-ups and the lens covers that easily.Also, for the landscape shots I take, I enjoy to compressed perspective.

Hey, even the odd portrait looks nice when shot at such extreme angle of view but you do need a walki-talkie if you want to do a full body shot...
 
Member's gallery
For me, the answer is No. I shoot different subjects that require different focal lengths: Macro, Landscapes, Birds and Nature.
If the question was rephrased for a particular subject, like birds, my answer might be Yes--the longest focal length I can comfortably use for the way I usually shoot. My answer is the 500mm f5.6 pf. If I were younger, it might be the 600mm or 800mm.
 
Member's gallery
I’m well past my “I need to photograph everything” and “must cover every single focal length” phases, and pretty much only photograph my family and birds. This is going to sound blasphemous, but I could give up my dedicated general purpose family kit because my iPhone captures most of that stuff anymore. So, it’s easy to pick the kit for birding.
 
Member's gallery
For a day - yes, but on an ongoing basis it would be the opposite of my style. For example, I might be photographing elk, but I would fully expect to use everything from a 24-70 and a 70-200 for environmental images, the 400mm f/4.5 for standard full animal shots, and the 800mm PF for just the head, eyes, or nose. For birds, I might use the 800mm PF for songbirds, or in a large manmade wetland for wading birds. But the 800mm PF is entirely too long for the St. Augustine Alligator farm or photographing puffins on Machias Seal Island.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
I’m well past my “I need to photograph everything” and “must cover every single focal length” phases, and pretty much only photograph my family and birds. This is going to sound blasphemous, but I could give up my dedicated general purpose family kit because my iPhone captures most of that stuff anymore. So, it’s easy to pick the kit for birding.
Click to expand...
You could also add the aperture to the lens choice. It's not you need an 85mm lens - do you need and use the f/1.2 or the f/1.8? There are people who swear by the f/1.2, and others who have no use for it at all.
 
Member's gallery
To your question, I think one could, and it may help advance photographic skills. "Beware the photographer with just one lens, they truly know how to use it." However, it would limit some types of shots that otherwise may be right in front of the camera and available.

I do think we often risk getting distracted by gear acquisition, including more lenses than we really need. Your question invites a good (and challenging) self-reflection on where we've grown our collections beyond true need. However, I do think one lens will ultimately be limiting, unless one has a VERY focused approach to photography.
 
Member's gallery
Carmel Nikon said:
To your question, I think one could, and it may help advance photographic skills. "Beware the photographer with just one lens, they truly know how to use it." However, it would limit some types of shots that otherwise may be right in front of the camera and available.

I do think we often risk getting distracted by gear acquisition, including more lenses than we really need. Your question invites a good (and challenging) self-reflection on where we've grown our collections beyond true need. However, I do think one lens will ultimately be limiting, unless one has a VERY focused approach to photography.
Click to expand...
With one lens, you have to be ok with the fact that there’ll be shots you’re going to miss. It gets better over time as you learn to better anticipate your subjects and positioning yourself, but at some point you come up against situations that just don’t work with your chosen lens.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
With one lens, you have to be ok with the fact that there’ll be shots you’re going to miss. It gets better over time as you learn to better anticipate your subjects and positioning yourself, but at some point you come up against situations that just don’t work with your chosen lens.
Click to expand...
indeed. but this is also the case with a zoom, or whatever. the issue is just more acute.
 
Member's gallery
I have used my D850 & 300 PF as a single kit combo for a long time, using my iPhone as a complimentary camera. It covered wildlife, close up, portrait and Landscape (far away mountains).

now my kit is mainly 2 lenses: 24-120 + 300 PF… these cover 80% of my needs.

the rest of my gear I use only on specific occasions, and could live without them if necessary.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
With one lens, you have to be ok with the fact that there’ll be shots you’re going to miss.
Click to expand...

Then again, with one lens you can try and find new ways to shoot things. You won't get a certain type of shot but you might get shots you didn't think of before and improve your style.

After all adaptation and evolution are responses to the limitations of the environment :D.
 
As with you MatthewK, I was content with my D500 and 200-500, however I decided to make the jump to mirrorless and bought the Z9 and FTZ ii adapter.
Shortly after this, I decided to ditch F mount altogether and chose upon the 400mm. This was a very daunting move for me, as I had never owned a prime and I was very worried about losing my zoom options, however I fell in love with the 400. If I'd left it at that, then yes, I would be very content with a single prime ... but I didn't, I purchased the 800 PF and although I have never put it down since getting it (never had the need to use the 400 since), I don't think I would be happy stuck at that focal length with no fall back and there is no way I'm getting rid of the amazing 800 :D
 
Member's gallery
Right, you start to get into the conversation with yourself about what sort of shots you’re most willing to sacrifice. Then, you get sick of missing them, and eventually add more lenses 😂 Unless something happens and I’m forced to go down to a bare bones setup, there’s no way I’m giving up my kit now; the 186 is just too perfect for what/how I shoot, and the 800PF is unbeatable when I can stretch its legs, can’t see giving either up. Yet, I’m a firm believer that less choice = greater freedom & creativity, so part of me will always ponder giving a one lens/camera kit a go (again).
 
Member's gallery
I could live with only one guitar but why? Same with lenses. With that said, over the years I have paired down my stable a lot. Right now I shoot the following:
Canon 100-500 L
Canon 24-105 F4L
Canon 100mm F2.8 L Macro
Canon 16mm F2.8 STM
Canon RF-S 10-18 STM.

That's it for my lens collection. I had lots of lenses with my Nikon gear but the above covers the range of the overwhelming majority of my photo subjects. I kept a couple F mount lenses and one Nikon DSLR as backup or when I'm photographing potentially dangerous situations (like the April Solar Eclipse). I would rather burn up the sensor in an older D7200 than a newer Mirrorless camera.

Just my two cents worth (and worth half what you paid for it).

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Other than my macro lens I don't have a prime lens and haven't for almost 20 years and shoot all zooms, except for that macro lens. If I had to, I could give up every lens other than my Olympus 100-400mm which focuses to a bit over four feet (it has the same angle of view as a FF 200-800mm). It would be nice to have that lens plus the 1.4x TC and/or a set of extension tubes, but I could get along without the TC and the tubes because the camera's internal digital 2x TC is much better than I ever expected. On the other hand I could also get along with my 75-300mm (150-600 to you FF folks) which is much smaller and lighter than the 100-400mm but only focuses to eight feet and doesn't take the TC so I'd need the extension tubes.
 
Member's gallery
In my film days, I had two cameras that I used -- a Crown Graphic with a 135mm lens and a Voigtlander Vito CLR with a 50mm lens. So it is possible (especially if you have a 4x5" "sensor" behind the lens.)
 
Member's gallery
Each focal length lens brings with it a single field of view and a single level of perspective distortion. There is also the desire on my part to minimize post processing time for images and so it is better to get it right in the camera than to rely on focus stacking or stitching of multiple images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top