{"id":136,"date":"2011-04-25T08:52:25","date_gmt":"2011-04-25T08:52:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/markdavidscott.com\/?p=136"},"modified":"2011-04-25T21:57:44","modified_gmt":"2011-04-25T21:57:44","slug":"lenses-the-eternal-question-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/markdavidscott.com\/?p=136","title":{"rendered":"Lenses: The Eternal Question # 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

The last post introduced the unsolvable question of picking the right lenses, suggested starting with what you have \/ a kit lens, and using the amazing capabilities computers give us to understand how we are using what we have. \u00a0You can’t tell what you would<\/strong> have used if you had it, of course, but it’s still a good starting point. \u00a0At least, it was for me.<\/p>\n

Part 2: Understand The Basic Approaches<\/span><\/p>\n

Having read a lot of online discussion before getting my initial D60 + 18-200 – and far more after jumping in – I came to believe that everyone comes at things from a particular perspective, and usually makes recommendations from that perspective as to what is “right”. \u00a0Of course, they’re all right – everyone is recommending what genuinely works for them, and your task is to figure out which recommender feels closest to you.<\/p>\n

However, this discussion is often a little stacked; those serious enough to head online and give advice to others (myself included if you count this as such) are almost by definition more serious about photography, and this often weights the opinions that you’ll see in a particular direction. \u00a0Thus, if you’re a beginning non-photographer (that is, just moving beyond a compact\/cameraphone but certain that your intent is better memories, not selling images or launching a new career), it may be helpful to understand how these approaches apply to you.<\/p>\n

Note that these approaches are not mutually exclusive, but it’s typical to at least start with one or another.<\/p>\n

The examples here are all Nikon specific, but I’m pretty sure anyone with knowledge could translate this directly into Canon or other terms pretty easily.<\/p>\n

Approach 1: One Lens to Rule Them All<\/h3>\n

Just because you can change lenses with a DSLR, does not mean that you have to<\/strong>. \u00a0The benefits of near-instant response time when you press the shutter button, fast auto-focus, better image quality especially in low light, and others apply as much regardless of whether you have one lens or twenty. \u00a0Indeed, anyone with a DSLR wishes that there was the one universal lens that did everything they need, but alas, no such thing (yet).<\/p>\n

Occasionally, you’ll see the philosophy that a single fixed (i.e. can’t zoom) wide angle lens is all you need. \u00a0In fact, anyone coming from a cameraphone as their main equipment will likely be quite familiar with this idea, and indeed by adjusting your perspective it’s possible to achieve quite a range of results despite a fixed focal length. \u00a0An example of this is the attractive, retro-styled Fujifulm X100, pictured below (the image is Fuji’s, and links to their X100 site). I can’t bring myself to pay even close to the astronomical $1,200 asking price – even though I like the concept, and like the controls (which I just realized are almost exactly what I asked for in the M\/A\/S\/P post<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a>More often, proponents of the one-lens approach recommend a zoom that covers a decent range from the wide end through to at least a mild telephoto. \u00a0It’s much more typical to find yourself wanting something wider than it is to lack reach when dealing with one-lens situations (especially on anything less than a full-frame camera, which an all-in-one shooter is almost certainly going to be using). S0 18mm (on crop sensors) is usually the minimum you see here. \u00a0Nikon makes a whole boatload of lenses for this purpose; the more popular current ones are:<\/p>\n