Multi lens users, do you miss a shot because you have too many lenses?

<p>If you are shooting events, you can miss shots changing lenses, batteries, or memory cards (been there, done that, got the tee shirt). For batteries and memory cards, it generally is a matter of timing and doing the change during breaks in the action.</p>

<p>For lenses, a common solution is to graduate from a single body to multiple bodies, each with a different lens attached. That way, instead of changing lenses, you just pick up the body that has the focal length you need. Besides the cost of the second body, going with multiple bodies can mean extra weight and learning how to wear multiple bodies so you don't tangle up the cords. It will also make you stand out, and not always in a good way, since the image that many people think of when they see somebody decked out is papparazzi (i.e. scum of the earth), or photo geek (i.e. boring mono-focused luser, and who can only talk about gear). A lot of people get multiple bodies as they upgrade gear, and use the older body for the lens that they don't use as often.</p>

<p>Another issue is if events truly are fast moving, if the two bodies are different, you might lose time switching you brain to remember where the controls are for the particular body you are shooting with right now. If the bodies take different batteries or memory cards, it means you have to double up, having both types of batteries/cards (and of course if the bodies are from different makers, you will have to double up on the lenses). Even though I have multiple bodies, I find I don't often shoot with them, but for things like whale watches, where you have no idea whether the whales will surface close or far away, or fast moving events, I do break out the multiple bodies and not worry about how others see me. For more street shots, I tend not go with the multiple bodies, at least outside the camera bag.<br>

Like the old joke about how to get to Carnegie Hall (practice, practice, practice), what you need to do is spend time with each lens so that mentally when you look at a scene, you will compose the shot in your minds eye, and know which focal length you will need to get the shot. In addition to composing the shot, you typically need to watch what is going on, so that when a decisive moment is approaching, you will have the correct lens mounted in time for the shot.</p>

<p>If you are just taking happy snaps and not thinking about composition, you should spend a second or two thinking about what elements you want in the shot, and if necessary where you will need to shot the shot from. For advanced usage in addition to planning the composition of the shot, you need to think about what aperture/depth of field and shutter speed to use. This just takes using your lenses enough that their characteristics become second nature to you.</p>

<p>In terms of using one lens over an other, who cares? Lenses are just tools, they won't sit in a corner and pout if you don't take them out. If you find yourself never using a particular lens, consider selling it. If you haven't bought a lens yet, I always recommend taking stock of what you shoot, and particularly what shots you weren't able to get due to gear, and see if patterns emerge. For example, one hole in my line up is I don't have any ultra-wide angle lenses, and every so often when I get gear lust, I look at my photos and see I'm rarely at the wide end of the lenses I own. There are a few times when I find I'm wanting to use that ultra wide angle, and I need to balance off the cost of such a lens against the number of times I would use it. That being said, with my new small camera, I'm finding myself starting to be drawn towards wide angle, so things change.</p>

<p>I seldom change a lens. If I'm street shooting I either take a rangefinder with a 35 or sometimes a fifty, and if bring a digital along, it will be the 17-35 or 24-70. Unless you are a specific gig where you need coverage. You can go through a lifetime with just a 50 or 35.</p>

<p> In weddings i'm constantly whipping through lenses. I have a Think tank belt system, so they're always close by which is nice. My latest set up was 16-35 2.8, 50 1.4, 200 2.8. You get quick at the changes, and it's really not that bad.</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p>With a 24-105 alone, I come home with some winners pretty much every time.</p>

<p>However, if I have specialty lenses with me (whether wide, tele, macro, or fast) and actually use them, I find that shots taken with them comprise a disproportionate share of the "winners."</p>

<p>I think that's because when I change a lens, I have an idea in mind that is good enough to overcome the inertia of sticking with whatever is already mounted on the camera, and having a good idea before pressing the shutter release really helps. :-)</p>

 

<p>You really do get used to the whole lens swapping concept, but it's worth trying to pick the best and least number of lenses for the task at hand. If I'm out for a day or an evening where a camera is key (often), and seriously fast primes or a backpack full of gear is not part of the plan, I think about what I'm most likely to shoot, and usually pick one of the four lenses highlighted below. If possible, I'll stuff the next likely lens candidate into a pocket as well... That covers lots of territory. Also, when dealing with the wide end of the focal range of lenses, I always go for significant range overlap. To me, it is far more important for freedom of composition without either settling for a less than ideal composition, or constantly swapping lenses all day to have wide to normal zooms overlap. Gaps at the tele ranges are fine. No overlap, or gaps at the wide end is a PITA.</p>

<p>Primes are fine, and I know many people still prefer them, but that tradition is really rooted in the fact that many early zooms used to suck eggs, by and large. I was around then, and it used to be true. They don't any more though, so if someone prefers a pocket full of prime lenses, that's fine. I still prefer a manual transmission in my cars, but I do like a six speed gearbox. I like high quality modern zooms, too. They perform like a slick six speed manual gearbox for me. I always have the perfect ratio for the road ahead a quick flick of the wrist away..</p>

<p>For a wedding or event, I wear a black toolbelt with several modified carpenter's hammer hooks to hang two cameras by their hand straps, while one is in my hand. No bouncing, and instant access. A black fishing vest under my sport jacket allows me to carry additional primes, strobes, and accessories in it's roomy pockets.... I keep plenty of choices on tap in those venues...<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2945652177_a04b5811f4.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>These two lenses pair up pretty well for "one on the camera, one in a pocket" lens duty as well. When lens speed isn't a major priority, I love that green ring 70-300 DO lens. It's a super performer in a stealth size when zoomed short for carry.<br /> <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2367/2515541934_d350cdbee2.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>When either of the above choices are just too much for the task at hand, this is always in my pocket anyway, and it does a pretty fine job all by itself in a pinch, or in addition to anything else I might have with me...<br /> <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4639233960_93f9394985.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

<p>No matter what the choice though, one of these is worth finding room for most all of the time...<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3366/4638634889_0e681eb2a9.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I cure the problem of not having the right lens by having two bodies. One usually has a wide zoom attached and the other usually has a telephoto zoom (70-200) attached. That way when I can grab what ever body that has the right lens attached for the shot I want to take. I know using two bodies isn't exactly convenient, but I find it a little more convenient than switching lenses back and forth.</p>

<p>At least that's how I work when I'm taking event photos... But when I'm trying to take my time and be artistic, I have a couple fast primes for that too.</p>

When shooting for art and fun I don't see the shots I miss. So I don't miss 'um. But that's how my mind works, maybe not

how your mind works...

<p>Used to carry two cameras, got old, normally a zoom for fun, Sigma 100-300 f/4 is my preferred lens for nature, 17mm or 14 mm for city scapes, 17-50 for street.</p>

<blockquote>My experience is, that any shot of any genre can be taken with any lens and any focal length with good results, well, with some exceptions probably</blockquote>

<p>I am afraid that this just isn't true. Obviously sometimes you can't get close enough with a given focal length, or you can't back up far enough. Using almost entirely prime lenses, I'm a big fan of "zooming with your feet" but sometimes your feet can't go to a certain place. Similarly, try taking a macro shot without a macro lens! Try making shallow depth of field with a slow lens, or shooting in near darkness with one. I'm not generally a fan of zoom lenses, but sometimes they are absolutely necessary, such as shooting certain events. Similarly, if you need the extended depth of field that the Scheimpflug principle can provide, you need a tilt lens. Try taking an IR or UV image with a lens that doesn't pass IR or UV!</p>

<p>Now are there always kludges that can mimic some of these effects with any lens? Sure, you might be able to get extended depth of field with careful focus stacking (i.e. using Helicon Focus). You might be able to get a macro shot with a reversing ring, an extension tube, or a diopter . . . or by hand holding a lens (unmounted) in front of your camera! You might be able to mimic shallow depth of field by front focusing. You can take pictures in low-light with a very high ISO, or on a tripod. You can nearly mimic a wider field of view by stitching images together. You can crop the center of an image to pretend you have a telephoto. You can fix perspective and distortion in Photoshop.</p>

<p>But there's more to lenses than their focal lengths. Different lenses have different characters --- different ways in which they draw the image. As you acquire more lenses you get to know their individual characters and deploy them for specific uses. I have four different lenses with a focal length between 50mm and 60mm, and will use each of them differently. There is no perfect lens --- every lens has compromises. Sometimes you can make do with using a lens in a less than optimal way, and sometimes you need to change lens. Also, lenses have different physical characteristics --- sometimes a single lens might be too large or too heavy. Other times this is just not a consideration.</p>

<p>But to answer your very original question . . . yes sometimes I'll miss a shot while changing lenses, but usually this is not a big deal. Changing a lens takes only a moment. Yes, I have had my 800mm lens deployed on a tripod, and a flock of birds came up nearby and there was no time to change to a wider lens. Most photojournalists carry two DSLR bodies, one with a wide zoom and one with a tele zoom and rarely change lenses. When I cover an event, such as a dance show, I'll have two or three bodies, each with a different fast prime lens. But for almost everything else, I won't walk around with more than one body. Sometimes I'll end up with the wrong lens attached for a moment, and have to decide whether it's worth it to change lenses. Sometimes the right lens is at home. But I never find myself wishing for a slow 18-200mm zoom, just so I don't have to change lenses.</p>

<p>Knowing what you want to photograph before going out with the camera is a big help and in the end will help land more keepers. If I'm going to walk the park in hopes of landing a decent bird photo I use my 70-300 IS. I'm not looking for wide scenic shots. Travel? A wide to mid-range zoom will probably cover most everything you need to shoot. Macro? Bolt on the macro lens and forget all else. I suppose an 18-200 all purpose zoom could come in handy but I'd rather have the best lens for the job at hand.</p>

<p>To me, when you get a 2nd lens (assuming it's significantly different from your first lens), you *enable* many more pictures than you will miss by having the wrong lens on.</p>

<p>When you pick a lens and snap it on, and hear it click, you're doing the hunting... you're on the offense. When a shot opportunity appears that you didn't anticipate, and you have the wrong lens on, you're reacting... you're on the defense. This isn't to say that reacting can't produce great pictures... it often can. But being on the hunt is a lot more fun!</p>

<p>I carry three lenses for two bodies most of the time. If there's a chance that I'll be shooting wildlife, then I put the 500mm on the 7D and the 24-105mm on the 5D2 and carry the 70-200mm in a vest pocket. If no wildlife is anticipated, then I put the 70-200 on the 7D and the 24-105 on the 5D2. Since I started that, I've not found myself wrong-lensed.</p>

<p>The solution to the lens-swapping issue is clear: Buy a camera body for every lens!</p>

<p>I haven't owned one of those 28-300mm type of lenses for a long time so not sure how good they are nowadays but I was not happy with the overally quality of images I was getting and even if the quality is good now, I find most things I shoot I want the big apertures so I'm stuck with those high end fast zooms or good primes. It is a damn hassle changing lenses though and I probably miss the odd shot when I do or miss the odd shot when I have the wrong lens on (particularly if it was a prime lens) but I will live with that. These days I typically have my 85mm f1.8 on my Canon and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my Sony and deploy the 2 camera system and it works out well for me with what I typically shoot.</p>

<p>I spend a lot of time in game reserves photographing wildlife and hate changing lenses because of the amount of dust. I get round it by having two bodies, one with the long telephoto and the other with a 100-400. Yes one does lose images even when you have two bodies within easy reach. For general picture taking I don't find changing lenses a problem.</p>

<p>I think all of us who don't shoot for a living go through phases on what we use and what we carry.<br>

I used to carry four lenses and a 580II every where. Now I take the 24-105 and one other lens with a 270EX for fill. Way better!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Changing lenses...is it a drag?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes... sometimes, but the alternative are much worse.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Do some lenses inevitably get ignored?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and when they do so for a long time I simply sell them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Do you hate it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you kidding? Of course not. It's like asking "Do you hate the fact that your Porches is difficult to handle around town and would you prefer a Mini instead?"

<p dir="ltr"> <br>

 

 

</p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim. <br>

 

 

</p>

<p>No!</p>