Building a 35mm SLR system

In the section on Perspective-Correcting lenses, you indicate that Pentax and Minolta do not offer such lenses. In truth, Pentax does offer a 28 mm f3.5 shift, though a higher price than the Nikon equivalent.

It's really to bad about Pentax. They have the most ergonomic bodies, but their high-end lens selection is truly lacking - getting better, but still not as available as Nikon/Canon.

I could not agree more with Phil's recommendations in his

This is all really great advice. I built my system, then read this, then realized that I did it mostly right. But I'd like to make an analogy that might give someone out there a little better perspective on photography...

Photography is like oil painting, except of course, you're painting with light. Imagine your camera is your easel, the film your canvas, your lenses your brushes, and the light your paint. The light comes in all types of colors and quality. Even if you have crappy paint, you can still paint a beautiful picture. The same is true for the easel. A perfectly-designed super-expensive easel, though cool, won't make the picture look any better than if it was on your lap, it's just easier. The canvas is important - you can make a beautiful picture on newspaper, but it won't last long and it probably won't look right. And vanGogh didn't use a 3" brush from to paint his sunflowers. You need a variety of quality brushes, each for it's own type of line or stroke. And if you can't afford a lot, rather than many bad brushes, you'll be better off with one good brush that will force you to make do and concentrate on the basics. Why to all artists start with just a pencil and paper? Finally, always keep in mind that experience and practice can never be replaced by equipment - and some of the greatest photographers in the world, even in the modern day, take one old trusty camera and a 35mm lens to an assignment (no matter what the manufacturers tell you.)

This is a great primer, but I think a major component of a good 35mm SLR system is being neglected: FLASH! A good flash will give a tremendous amount of versatility to the pictures you make. You may be able to take pictures in low light with your 50 f1.8, but if the subject is moving at all, you probably won't be freezing the action very well. And believe it or not, a good flash can be your savior even on sunny days. By my standards, a good flash has the following: TTL (through the lens) metering, a zoomable, rotateable/swivable head, and second-curtain-sync. Don't get a flash if it doesn't have these features. TTL makes using a flash a lot easier. A swiveable flash head gives you the ability to "bounce" the light, eliminating "flash burn" while giving the picture a more balanced look. Second-curtain-sync gives you the ability to play with motion blur and still freeze the subject. And as long as you're spending the money, get an off-shoe cord. A flash off the camera is even better than flash on the camera. Efficiently and effectively operating a flash can be as difficult as operating the camera by itself, so wait until you have a firm grasp on the basics of exposure and composition before playing with flash. Maybe after acquiring a wide-angle lens, probably not before that. I hope this was helpful.

Regarding the wedding photography advice, I shot a roll of TMZ at the last wedding I went to and had 2 or 3 of the best shots custom printed. After viewing hundreds of 6x6 color proofs, the bride really enjoyed the look of a nicely printed B&W 5x7.

I've been in the business for 37 years and find that your presentation is just what the old codger (me) or novice needs to build (or rethink) building a system approach. That said, I will join another reader who noted that PENTAX still produce(s) a f/3.5 SMC "Shift" lens in 28mm. Whether Minolta ever has I do not know. PENTAX SMC "pro" lenses are the equal of are better than any produced by the two "major" marques. I've used them for years, wiht far fewer complaints that what we hear about EOS lenses on the EOS forum.

Suda Mafud / sudamafud@aol.com

I can only second the comment about the wide angle lens. There's a reason why it's listed as the second lens purchase (after the 50mm): you will find yourself using as much or more than any other lens. This is something you don't realize until you own one (or two, or three).

Re-read the PC lens section again recently and just plunked some money down on the Zuiko 35/2.8 PC lens for my OM-4 (cannot afford the wider one!). Your discussion of Europe and architectural photography reminded me of another problem I encountered while living there. It made me wish I had a PC lens 20 years ago.

Some museums and galleries will allow photography provided it is done with available light and you stay on the visitor side of the cordons. (What they do not like is flash units and what the intense light emitted by them does to old paint.) Room and hallway dimensions and shapes, and other objects or cordons can make getting a decent photograph of a large object frustrating and very difficult (if not impossible) with normal prime lenses. In addition, the immense interiors of old cathedrals presents a problem similar to tall buildings on narrow streets. A PC lens will also shift left and right as well as up and down. The combination can enable better indoor photographs that require an offset position position from the subject (painting, statue, etc.).

-- John

My perspective on film has changed over the years. First off, let me say that I am not interested in black & white for my own shooting, and never have been. I am part of the first Color TV generation, and I like color film!

I agree with Phil that slide film is great for learning control of your camera, and that prints rarely approach the same sense of "being there." And quality processing is cheaper, which lets you burn more film. But I am reminded of a quote attributed to jazz legend Charlie Parker: "First, master your instrument. Then forget all that %^&* and play!"

I spent years learning how to make Kodachrome, Ektachrome, and Fujichrome look their best. And I developed a reputation in my family for having zillions of awesome photographs that no one would ever see.

Nowadays, if I'm shooting family and friends, I usually use a print film, because (1) I can get it developed anywhere, any day of the week, and get the prints back that day; and (2) everyone really wants to see the prints. The fact that the exposure is less critical is a bonus. Throw in the tolerable grain from today's 400 speed print films, and the greater depth of field made possible by the increased speed, and it should be obvious why I prefer print film for social occasions.

And for putting photos on the Web, the price of flatbed scanners vs. film scanners is just another incentive to shoot prints. Granted, you have better sharpness and more control with a film scanner, but when you're constructing images that are at most 800 pixels on a side, who cares?

For more critical work, where I am the only one who cares about the results, I still prefer slide film. But when playing around, print film is the way to go.

-- Chuck

Just a word of warning about wedding photography. If Cousin Schlomo has hired a pro to photograph the wedding, try to coordinate with this guy so that you don't interfere with eachother. Afterall, Cuz is paying good money for photographs of himself and his bride, so it's a good idea not to blow the paid photographer's shots. Usually, you can count on the same courtesy from him -- if he knows you're there.

I think the readers of this site could lighten-up a little. Phil knows what he's talking about. Listen.

First thing, The 'photo net' is an excellent place for novice's and experts alike. After reading this review, I will put my 28-105 zoom away and get back to basics with my 50mm/1.8 and 28mm!

Phil - Keep up the good work and inspiration.

Richard

I am just getting back into photographer after a 15 year hiatus -- having two kids has brought the shutterbug back. I initially bought a Tamron 28-200mm but returned it within a week because I realized I had been had by the marketing world. (My thinking was 1 million owners, how could I go wrong?) The lens was incredibly slow and a huge monstrosity to have hanging on my neck. I went with Phil's recommendation of three primes and have been amazed at how this has helped me to think more about what I am doing. Sure it is a hassle sometimes to change lenses, but I find that I am thinking much more about the pros/cons of each focal length, and enjoy the speed and compact, lightweight size of the primes.

I just want to pass on the inexpensive system I have built:

Pentax ZX-M .. I love this camera because it is simple, extremely lightweight, inexpensive, and I love the fact that I can physically turn the shutter speed dial and the aperture collar. Along with the Pentax ZX-M I have picked up some great priced Pentax SMC "A" series lenses 28 2.8, 50 1.7 and 100 2.8. I bought this whole system (3 lenses and camera body) for $430.

*Finding* a Nikon 50mm lens has been more difficult than one might infer from this article. Local (Seattle-area) stores don't carry them because most customers want to buy a zoom lens. Two of the recommended mail order places I tried, B&H and Calumet, didn't have them, nor were unable to offer a possible ship date from the factory.

After having a lens backordered with Calumet for three weeks, I finally found a refurb locally.

While there's no argument that an automatic stopdown diaphragm is a useful feature, in my opinion Phil's comment of it being "vastly more convenient" is quite a bit of exaggeration. Considering the overall workflow of picturetaking with a shift lens, which is finding the viewpoint, setting up a tripod, leveling the head, selecting the shift value, metering, stopping down the diaphragm, and making the exposure, the extra time it takes to turn the aperture ring to stop down the diaphragm is IMO a minuscule factor, % wise, in the overall process.

In a lens for action shooting I'd say, sure, automatic diaphragm / aperture stopdown makes a considerable difference, but we're talking about a shift lens!

> Canon lenses also offer tilt, which can be used to precisely
> control the plane of focus (i.e., your depth of field is no longer
> limited to planes perpendicular to the lens's optical axis).

I think it must be mentioned that Canon's current T/S lenses can only be tilted in a direction perpendicular to the chosen direction of shift (or, if they are modified at the factory, same direction as shift).

Lastly, there is a currently available tilt / shift lens for Minolta Maxxum SLR cameras: an Ukrainian ARSAT 35 35 mm f/2.8 lens. I am using one and have found the results to be excellent (in the context of enlarging to 16x20", and comparing against several pieces of Minolta's high end "G" series glass I own).

I see that the version of this lens in Minolta mount can be obtained here:

www.arsenal-photo.com/tilt.htm

It appears to be an after-market conversion; I have converted the ARSAT 35 that I use to Maxxum mount myself, and so have not dealt with this vendor. Therefore I cannot say anything for their reliability or quality of work - be sure to verify with them that the converted lens still adheres to original specs and has the same quality and can still be focused at infinity even wide open.

In my experience, with a wider than Nikon's opening of the Minolta mount, max. mechanical shift (around 11.4 mm) can be utilized without vignetting when shifting either vertically OR horizontally. I find lateral color and light falloff very well controlled at typical architecture / landscape shooting apertures (f/8 or below), down to the periphery of the imaging circle. The color balance is slightly warm, however, which is irrelevant for B&W / color neg. shooters and can be corrected for slide shooters by merely using an 82A filter instead of the clear UV / protector filter [62 mm]. I find Hoya's 82A even a bit too strong for the purpose; I think B+W's 82A is a bit lighter and better suited for the task.

Alex Karasev

I have built my SLR System the same way, I can agree with the most of this writing. But I think, that two useful tools are missing: the flash (as it was written in the pevious comments) and the polarisation filter. This filter is a very useful thing, and gives more professional look for the pictures in many cases.

Fixed focal length lens is critical for a beginner photographer who needs to learn the fundementals. I read this page first, then against the recommendations bought my first SLR system with a zoom (Canon 28-105(3.5-4.5)USM). The Lens is great, super fast, quite focus and subject is pin sharp. BUT not understanding the mathematics of optics I was getting inconsistant results, particularly in regards to DOF. There are too many variables changing when you start cranking the zoom in and out. I found a great DOF chart (www.photocritique.net/dof.html)that inspired me to learn the mathematics of DOF and put the zoom away. I got a 50mm 1.8 and have been getting consistant and expected results. The larger apature also allows me to shoot in lower light and to really blow unwanted backgrounds out of focus. It's tempting to get the zoom right away, but if you want to really learn and get consistant results, save the money for a few months, it will pay off big time.

I would recommend the simplest form of advice for new photographers, something I had been told a few years ago that would have saved me hundreds of dollars and much frustration had I listened to it.

Get ONE body, ONE lense (50mm), LOTS of film, and TAKE PICTURES! Forget about zooms, wide angles, telephotos, etc... and just take pictures, lots of them! When the day comes that you actually KNOW you need another lense or accessory, you will know it, and you will know what you need and why.

Until then, don't blow your money on the desperate hope that the latest, greatest camera accessory will get you out there taking pictures. It wont. I have had more fun since I sold all my gear except a Canon AE-1, 50/1.8 lense, and Bogen tripod than I had in years of accumulating every little thing I could afford to buy.

I should begin by noting that I write this as an amateur, so please don't rely on my opinion to make any important decisions. This is in response to the numerous people who have commented on the drawbacks of zoom lenses. Yes, they are generally slower and poorer in quality than primes tend to be, but it seems to me that people treat them with more reserve than is actually warranted. Zoom lens can produce quality pictures, and they do have certain advantages over primes. The most important, I feel, concerns framing. Sometimes it's not safe, possible, or desireable to adjust one's position in relation to the subject. In this situation a zoom lens can help obtain the best possible framing.

As a hypothetical example, consider, for instance, photographing an object from the ground up. You've just chosen your favorite angle and are now ready to frame the shot. Since you don't have access to a crane, getting physically closer is impossible. From this particular angle, the two or three primes you can afford don't quite give you the precise framing you desire. While it's possible to crop the picture later, another option is to use a zoom lens to take the picture, giving you great flexibility in framing the shot. This, I believe, is a good example of how zoom lenses can truly be useful tools. I personally like the idea of a zoom lens, and would be quite comfortable using one most of the time. Perhaps someday I'll buy a 50mm prime and use it as my primary lens. For now, a zoom will do well enough for my needs.

Pentax SMC 28mm/1:3.5 shift

Generally good format for a needed section. Unfortunate that it has so many irritating errors left uncorrected for so long.

Attached is a photo of the Pentax Perspective control (SMC 28mm/1:3.5 shift) lens.

I too have been building my system this way, and what it has taught me is that I'm happiest with my 50mm, ninety percent of the time. I have my wide-angle, I have my telephoto, I have my zoom, and I have my tripod (and my flash), but they are specialty tools. My 50mm, my body, and roll after roll of fast film are all that I've found I usually need.

And with regard to Phil's alleged error, I'd like to note that he never said that PC lenses are exclusive to Nikon and Canon. Phil said eg. Canon and Nikon; he did not say ie. The former is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase exempli gratia (loosely translated: for example); the latter would be id est, translated as 'that is.'

Frank Wortner made a comment above about adding a wide-angle lens. I've got a system with both a wide-angle and a tele-zoom, and over a number of years I must have used the tele-zoom something like 10x more than the w/angle - I think I just see things that way. I've even purposefully gone out armed only with the 24mm, and given up after while because I missed the telezoom too much!

Of course, this is probably my shortcoming rather than anything else, but while I value my w/angle (I have used it!) I have always found my telezoom much more useful. Different strokes, I think.

W/respect to building an SLR camera system, I would think that there are two basic questions (or question "clusters") which a complete novice should possibly ask him/her/self:

1) How serious am I about my new pastime? Is this going to continue for years to come? Am I willing to learn, grow, and develop towards obtaining still greater and greater results? Or rather I want to be just a casual snapshooter because video is my REAL hobby?

2) If I'm serious: what TYPE/AREA of photography I'm interested in and most likely to venture into? Most important distinction to make, IMHO, is whether one is going to take pictures of STATIONARY or MOVING subjects (most of you already know where I'm heading).

I know that both points are very hard to answer by a novice because s/he is usually much less capable of envisioning and predicting his/her photographic future even though s/he may be dead sure what to shoot at the moment. However, I think that unless somebody is wealthy enough to easily REPLACE (rather than ADD to) the system, this is an important decision to try to make early on. Simply put:

1) With "stationary" photography (landscape, still life, portrait, etc.), great results can be obtained with a simple manual camera (including a used medium or large format, a rangefinder, or Pentax K1000, or whatever), a few good prime lenses (as the article states) and a couple of accessories like a tripod, a few filters, cable release, later maybe a semi-automatic flash and hand-held spot meter. The point here is: your subjects will NOT move or run away, you have time to set everything up, think, and take an exposure (or more exposures). It's totally unncesessary to get all these high-tech gadget-loaded AF cameras with this approach. However, even a simple approach and simple camera calls, IMO, for a few bells and whistles such as the DOF preview and (sometimes) a mirror lock- even the simplest, bare-bone shooting would benefit from these.

2) With "movement" photography or some other specialized areas, many of those are technically off limits (or hardly accessible for the novice) for a simple manual camera. In this case, investing in a decent AF system would be probably a good move.

What I am saying here, echoing some other statements across this page: yes, a bare-bone manual camera can successfully compete with Nikon F5 or Canon EOS-3 or Maxxum 9 or whatever high-tech gizmo in SOME FIELDS of photography. In other fields, though, there is no competition because the manual cameras would not even enter the ring.

And the final thoughts for all those who cannot decide on what they'll most likely be shooting in 10 or 15 years: an AF camera is, IMHO, way more versatile. Push a few buttons, switch to manual focus and exposure metering, and here you have a simple manual camera- with the additional convenience of integral spot metering, TTL flash control, illuminated viewfinder info, etc.- (BUT mostly with poor or no distance and DOF marks on the lenses, darn). In a few seconds, you can turn back your simple and manual camera into the sophisticated tool capable of a lot of things off limits to the REAL manual, simple camera. It's like having the best of both worlds in one camera body. I must admit that I've been shooting in the manual mode much more often with my EOS than with my previous system with Minolta X-700. However, you cannot do it the other way around, i.e. make your great Pentax K1000 into a good AF SLR, no matter how hard you try. When things around you go fast and you don't want to lose it, you better have some automation, and it better be good.

Also, the AF system will be more likely to stay longer with you while you grow, allowing for expanding knowledge and horizons, entering new areas of photograpy, all within the same system, just perhaps ADDING stuff rather than REPLACING it.

Just my two pennies here.

All the best with your shooting,

Piotr

r.e. starting with a 50mm lens. I have agonized for years over what lens should be considered normal for the 35mm format and have concluded from actual use that the 50mm ("nomal")lens is a bore. The lens is sharp, cheap, compact and boring. The 50mm lens is a remnant from the old Leica days and foisted upon unsuspecting tyro photographers as a necessity. The diagonal of the 35mm format is 43mm so a normal lens should be 43mm long. Add 7 mm and you have a 50mm lens, subtract 7mm and you have a 35mm lens. The 50mm lens is too narrow and in effect a short telephoto. The point and shoot cameras have correctly settled on the 35mm focal length as the standard for their fixed lens cameras. The 35mm lens on an SLR has the advantage of controlling depth of field by choosing an appropriate aperture and using the len's depth of field scale and no parallax when viewing through the lens. The view through a 35mm focal length lens is great. You can get great shots of scenery, group shots of people, shots of people with scenery and nicer indoor shots of people with their environment. You can always get closer with any wide angle (i.e. 35mm lens) but you can't always back far enough away unless you can knock down a few walls. If you must have a 50mm lens then buy a macro 50mm lens so you won't need to use it as paperweight later on. Note: The 50mm is supposed to make an outstanding loupe for view cameras so it may not be a complete waste of money. Buy a Tiffen or B+W UV or Skylight filter to protect all your lenses. If it is worth owning,it is worth protecting the lens and you can use the filter on other lenses later depending on the system you choose. The next lens a person should buy is a 28-105mm or a 24-85mm zoom and these would make excellent choices as begining lenses without the purchase of the 50mm or the much better 35mm f2.8 or f2.0 lens. Full Auto with fill-flash day or night is very effective and productive and my favorite mode of travel and people photography. There are some excellent reasonably priced automatic autofocus camera bodies such as the Nikon N60 and the Canon Elan II. Buy Canon EOS for ease of use or buy Nikon for durability and access the huge market of used lenses and camera bodies and the current production mechanical Nikon FM2n. I you have an electrically powered full auto camera you can always turn it into a manual operation camera to play with until you move up to autofocus full auto so you don't miss your shots while changing lenses and manually focusing. Print film (ISO 400) easily makes for the slower lens speed and autofocus makes up for focusing difficulty caused by reduced lens speed of zoom lenses. Note: Canon and Nikon affordable zoom lenses are very sharp and you'll pick off shots the fixed lens snail photographers will often miss. Changing lenses can cause marital discord or break up relationships so figure this into you equation for equipment purchases. Note: Metz makes some of the best if not the best aftermaket flashes and many offer changable modules if you have more than one camera system on hand.

I really like all the help available on this site and just thought I would leave some thoughts on the cheap system I've put together over the past 6 months. I bought a Minolta Stsi late last year without a lens, then added a 28/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/2.8 (all with metal mounts)all of which were bought used. The 135mm Maxxum has long been out of production and was the most expensive of the three (about $150 with shipping), the other two were a total of $90 with shipping in excellent condition. I have now added a 3500xi flash for cordless off camera flash, an RC 1000S remote release and use an old Velbon tripod I've had forever. I guess with filters etc. I've spent about $600 for the system and find that it fits almost all of my needs, I'll eventually buy a wider lens and a longer telephoto, when I find the right price on a good used one. I highly recommend the Minolta gear, I've used it photographing my company bike team (hanging over the trunk of our convertable at speed)as well as landscapes. In particular try to find one of the 135mm lens, the portraits I have taken with this lens have been superb.

I have tried a variety of lenses for 35mm cameras, and have come around to pretty much agreeing with Phil G.'s approach. If I carry 2 lenses, they are usually 24mm and 85mm. Since the eye is not a camera, but is very closely integrated with the brain, what it sees is often determined by what it is "told" to look at. I feel comfortable with the 24mm when browsing, or when I want to see a subject with a lot of environment. When looking that way, it feels "normal." When my attention narrows, it seems a lot like an 85mm, which then feels "normal." The problem for me is the one in the middle. I'm leaning toward a 35mm. I must say that when I was starting out, I was too poor to have anything but a 50mm (a good Pentax Takumar), and I did all right. I have a couple of zooms, but hardly ever use them.

Overall, I think Phil's step by step methodology is just about right. I didn't think about it at the time, but 45 years ago that is exactly how I progressed. (Withouy realizing it at the time)

But what I really wanted to comment on was the issue of the "normal lens" As pointed out by a previous commenter the diagonal of a 35 mm frame is 43 mm. Nice, but so what? A more relevent criterion for "normal" is the width of view of the lens as it relates to the normal width of view of our eyes. I firmly believe the horizontal viewing angle of the lens is the most important because our eyes are arranged in the horizontal plane. Now, I realize that our peripheral vision extends to 120 degrees or more, but there is a region of greatest sensitivity to color and detail that is much narrower. Of course, this requires that the eyes are not shifted to left or right, and that they are focused at infinity. i.e. The muscles that converge the eyes for binocular vision are relaxed. Under these seeing conditions, the eyes see something more like a 38 mm lens. Years ago I ran a series of experiments on my back porch to figure this out. After I reached my conclusion, it dawned on me that I couldn't be the first person to make this observation. So, off to the library. Lo, and behold; in the Photography Encyclopedia I found the same opinion. Could this be why so many P&S cameras today stop at 38 mm on the wide end?

Anyway, after this experiment I ran out and picked up a Pentax 40 f/2.8 lens and shot a bunch of stuff. What I found was that most of the time when I had an inspiration ("Say, that'd be a great shot") involving larger objects at some distance, when I put my camera to my eye, the subject framed just the way I had visualized.

So I came to believe the 38 mm focal length sees the world the way we do when we see it with both eyes, unconverged. The 50 mm seems to see things the way we do with one eye closed. Try it yourself, you'll see what I mean. Sort of reminiscent of "It's a man lookin' through a little hole".

Some comments on PC lenses and SLR's other than Canon or Nikon [specifically, on Minolta MD]:

-Although it is no longer in production, Minolta made a PC lens -- the MD 35mm f/2.8 Shift CA. It offers 11mm vertical shift, 8mm lateral shift, 7.5mm diagonal shift. It also features Variable-Field Curvature (VFC) technology, an intriguing 3-D tilt-like function not duplicated by any other manufacturer -- unlike the flat plane in tilt, VFC involves convex and concave movements. For the curious, I have transcribed a manual for the Shift CA lens; it can be found here.

-I have also seen the Schneider PA-Curtagon 35mm f/4 lens available in MD mount, although it's a bit more common [and expensive] in a Leica R mount. This lens is no longer in production. Schneider's other shift lens, the PC-Super-Angulon 28mm f/2.8, is still in production, but as far as Minoltas are concerned, it fits Maxxum but not MD.

-Acording to Arsenal Photo, the Arsat PC 35mm f/2.8 is available in Minolta AF mount (Maxxum/Dynax), but not MD. I have yet to hear anything other than speculation on whether it may be converted to MD mount. However, it is possible to get one in M42 screwmount and use a screwmount adapter.

-For the record, I know of two PC converters available for 35mm SLR's: the Zoerk Panorama Shift adapter, about $700 or $300-400, depending who you ask; and the Horseman View Camera Converter, about $1,600. However, I cannot assure you that these will solve all your PC problems.

The problem with the Zoerk PCA is that you need medium format size lenses, because for shift you need a bigger image circle. Similarly, the Horseman converter requires large format lenses. The problems these lenses present to 35mm format are twofold.

First, MF and LF lenses have longer focal lengths -- the film is bigger, so the image circle must be as well. This means that you're stuck with mostly telephoto when adapting these larger lenses to 35mm.

Second, both MF and LF lenses tend to have more aberrations in the glass than 35mm. That's fine when you're using them in their native habitat -- these flaws are more than compensated for by the larger film surface -- but it can produce poorer image quality on a 35mm slide or negative.

[Many thanks to Alex Karasev for his considerable input on this subject.]

Great primer! I enjoy using both primes and zooms - wouldn't want to part with either option. When I have the opportunity and correct vantage point to use my Nikkor 24mm or 50mm or Tamron 200mm, I do. Why settle for the compromises of a zoom in those situations? When I need to compose from one point (in crowds, on the run, etc.) my Tamron 28-200mm is more likely to get the usable shot. The zoom will usually blow away the primes in those situations. Since, as I photograph mostly for myself, the primes get the most work.

In defence of zooms: there are many different kinds of photography. One point of view would classify it by how long your window of opportunity is -- how much time do you have to take the picture you want. Studio and still-life photographers have windows of opportunity that are measured in hours. They have no need of zooms. Landscape and plant photographers have windows of opportunity measured in minutes -- interesting light changes quickly. They, too, have little need of zooms. However for street-life (Cartier-Bresson nonwithstanding) and travel photography zooms are very, very useful. When your window of opportunity is mere seconds ability to zoom is precious. Yes, your negative will be somewhat less sharp, although given that you are not using a tripod, the camera shake will probably determine the image sharpness and not the lens. But it's much better to take a not-of-perfect-technical-quality picture than to miss the moment and take no picture at all.

I would also say that I am wary of general photographic advice. Different kinds of photography are *very* different, they attract different people and demand different equipment. For example, in my personal subjective view, 50mm is a wide-angle lens. I consider 135mm to be "normal" and use 100-300mm zoom as my standard lens, the way other people use something like 28-85mm zoom. I am not saying this is "right", it's just that my personal vision of the world works this way. Thus I would encourage people to experiment with what's natural for them and not go out and buy a standard set of equipment just because it is standard.

Kaa

Well, time to dive into the photo.net lake, I guess... :-)

I have a Nikon FG-20, Soligor 85-205 F3.5, and a Minolta 360 flash.

All bought at pawn shops, all work just fine; I *might* be $250 into the whole outfit, including the bag, and a Series E 50/1.8 that I occasionally pull out when I need the exposure latitude.

While I agree that it's easier to develop the framing/DOF/perspective reflex with primes, I don't think that it's impossible to do it if your only lens is a zoom; merely that you're required to put effort into it, rather than getting it for free. I'm perfectly happy with that tradeoff, myself. I'd like a stop-down preview button on the camera, but I get along without it, especially since it's aperture-preferred. Since I don't shoot much sports, that's the type of auto-exposure I prefer.

A large part of the shooting I do is model and event. Two disciplines with different requirements, to be sure, but both seem well served by the gear I have, and certainly for the money I paid for it.

I'm not one to accuse Phil of being a "rich guy"; I know he spent his time being a poor grad student, too. But, in the final analysis, you can take good pictures with a snapshot camera.

The only difference is, you can't take *all* pictures with one; there will be some you can't get. What's that old rule? If you get three shots you can use, it was a good roll?

I cannot tell you how good this advice is. I went out and got a cheap 50/f1.8mm lens, second hand EOS body and learned more with four rolls of film than I had with the previous 20 with a 35-70 zoom.

One point worth making: I took care to get an old EOS 600 when I bought second hand. Why? It's one of the cheapest second hand Canon's as it's over ten years old, it's not too confusing on the feature count, it has a metal lens mount, and most important it has depth of field preview: this really teaches you a lot about depth of field, and not that many cheap Canons have it.

This article is bang on the money. I started several years ago with a Nikon FG and a basic 50 mm 1.8, and never once regretted my decision. I later moved to a Nikon F and traded my 50 mm 1.8 for a 50 mm 2.0 (it's simply a better quality lens around the edges), and I still carry a 28mm 2.8, 105mm 2.5, 200mm 4.0 and 300mm 4.5, much to the reluctance of my friends who have gone with zoom lenses.

Although it's not the most convenient collection of gear to carry around, it does its job well and has yet to leave me stranded. Add in that the older gear tends to be far more durable, and I have yet to find a reason to "upgrade".

If you have plenty of money from your web work ("The Easy Way") it might be a good idea to start with a really expensive body, a digital SLR that takes Nikon or Canon lenses. The primes can have odd focal lengths because of the focal length multiplier, but you can instantly review your shots and the camera will even show you a graph indicating how good your exposure was. The D30 will even flash blown out highlights for you. The camera will save the exposure info with the image. You will not need the services of a Lab either. If you don't have so much money, a cheaper digital with manual controls would do.

Minolta did offer a perspective correcting lens for the MD mount in the 1980s, but it is no longer listed. I don't have the specs at hand (it was listed in a catalogue I got with my X300, which was one of the earliest X300s built).

Minolta made a Shift lens as early as the late 70's. It was touted to be the envy of the Nikon folks who rushed to catch up. It was called the Minolta 35mm f2.8 SHIFT CA. It was and still is by today's standards an outstanding lens. I have a price list from 1987 that shows this lens listed at $1,351.00 US. That same list also shows the MD 24mm f2.8 VFC (Variable field curvature) lens retailed for $753.00 US.

Having gone the "wide aperture, prime lens first, body matters after that" approach myself -- pre Age of Auto-Everything -- and then consciously chosen the "coupla zooms 'cause this autoexposure/autofocus camera's really just a convenience item, when you get down to it" approximately ten years later, one more small vote for when it's okay to go after cheap zooms:

once you really understand and have the feel for what you can do with different types of primes; once you understand the contrast and distortion limitations of a "cheap" zoom; once you've gotten to the point where you use a primes system when you're in a situation where you want to use depth of field to help provide good, selective subject focus/highlighting, _then_ there's no reason to feel ashamed for holding off buying a super-heavy low-aperture zoom and buying a convenient, lighter-weight one instead.

I think Philip's main article is right on from the quality perspective, especially for those starting from scratch. I only think it's a bit severe rhetorically about cheap zooms. They're not exactly the "garbage" the article implies, and I disagree with the idea you're just as well off with a P&S as an SLR with a cheap zoom.

That said, I would recommend staying with a Nikon/Canon/Minolta brand cheap zoom if you go this way. The reason you get such a lens is convenience, and you're most likely to have the best results in that area if you buy the lens that goes with the system.

And then, when you're worried about total quality, go _rent_ a $1,000-plus lens when you have those special needs.

Advice from an amateur to other amateurs.

-- Steve

I just have a brief comment about zooms. As in many other comments, I was fortunate to learn photography with a very limited supply of lenses starting with the little plastic lens on my 126 Instamatic camera 30 years ago (encased in a plastic Charlie the Tuna promotional gimmick), to a 35mm on a simple 35mm rangefinder, to various 50mm on SLRs. When I finally came to the conclusion that I had a need for the focal length and versatility of a telephoto-zoom, I purchased a low end one. It didn't take too long for me to realize that this lens was a waste of money.

I eventually made the jump from a Pentax mount system to Nikon and decided to update my zoom (my subject matter still demanded this type of lens). This time, however, I bought a rather expensive, heavy, and fast Tamron 70-210 F3.5. I have been using that lens to this day (some of the best photo money I ever spent) and it has not let me down in either versatility or quality.

Zooms aren't bad as a concept (assuming you have the basics down), but bad zooms are a waste of money. I've taken this rule so literally as to refuse to purchase a point and shoot camera that has a zoom (my wife still does not understand why). It may not have the versatility of a zoom, but the speed and quality of the F2.8 35mm on my Yashica T4 Super makes for great photos in the right hands.

I recently started getting back into photography afer a 12 year hiatus. Back then, I learned early on that photography is one of those fields where you ask several people the same question, you will get as many answers. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is a critic. So, here's my twist on getting started, which I think might apply to a lot of people.

I think most people will agree photography is expensive, whether you're a hobbyist or a professional. You will spend a couple of hundred dollars on a decent camera body, alone. At 16, finances forced me to learn about light, composition, different films, etc with the 28-85mm/4-5.6 zoom lense that came with the camera. It's possible. Just force yourself to not adjust the focal length while taking pictures. Move closer/farther and adjust your angle instead (which, I think, is 50% of a good picture anyway). Then go and take lots of pictures with film of various speeds. I was pleased with the photos I took. So were my family and friends. When finances allowed it (over one year later), I rented a 50mm/1.8 lense, and 28mm and a 100 mm. The reason for renting was to test the lense to see if it would suit my needs and style without having to purchase it right away. I ended up purchasing the 50 and 100 mm. the 50mm/1.8 was wonderful for taking pictures inside where there is likely to be less light. The 100mm/2.8 was wonderful for portraits. I did not purchase the 28mm. I am not a huge fan of low depth of field for wide angle shots, so, for me and my budget, my zoom lense was much better.

Fast forward 12 years. The camera I purchased recently came with a 28-90mm/4-5.6. My husband then bought me a 70-200mm/2.8 zoom lense as a birthday present. I dug up my old camera equipment and compared pictures taken with both systems. With the exception of the 50mm/1.8, there wasn't enough difference between the photos to say one system was better than the other. In other words, it seems like zoom lense optics have greatly improved over the years. I also did like the AF on my newer camera. Also, the internet has made digital imaging/editing a very big part of SLR photography today. This was not an issue 12 yrs ago. I'm learing the hard way that a poor scan can make a beautiful film picture look very average or even bad on a computer screen. So money must also be set aside for a quality photo scanner, editing software, and a good computer system with enough RAM to handle all of that. I realize this is outside of the scope of this primer, but I mention it for a better perspective of the initial investment.

My approach may be slow but I think a lot of beginners find themselves in the same place, money wise, so it may be a not so untraditional approach.

Great site, great info!! BUT there are two things i miss in the "building a 35mm camera system" article. First: Lens availability! This refers to the fact that some manufacturers (Canon!!!, Minolta) have changed their mount when introducing autofocus. That means you can´t use older (cheaper, maybe better) lenses. Maybe with adapters you can use the old ones in manual only mode, but well... Others (Nikon, Pentax!!!) have NOT changed their mounts. That means you can buy a 15,-$ 50/1.18 Pentax SMC-M Lens and use it on your brandnew body. Often enough the old lenses are even better than new ones, regarding optics and mechanics. Features maybe less, but who cares. Second: Pentax Pentax Pentax Pentax Pentax Pentax ;-) just to compensate for the allmighty repetition of the Canon brand. And they do not only offer a shift lens, even a FISHEYE ZOOM is available (Wahoo).

Oops, of course I mean the SMC-M 50/1:1.8 lens...

I would like to add that 2 years ago I decided to take this 18 year hobby of mine which today is 20 years to a new level. For 20 years I used the Canon Fd system and bought my first EOS a 630 a few months ago. Looking at "snap shots" that I took with the EOS and comparing them to my serious photographs that I took with the FD system using a T90 , and the best Zoom/Prime lenses that I could find in the last two years. I sold the Fd system last month. I shelved my pro body for an ametuer/hobby body because I could mount brandnew lenses that gave NOTICEABLY better image quality. I still to this day do not have an EOS prime and my $200 28-105 3.5/4.5 USMII and $115 100-300 USM lens have given me very nice and publishable results. I do have a 50mm MkI ont the way, and next week will drop some serious dough for the 28mm 2.8 85mm1.8 and 100mm Macro to shoot weddings. I was shooting weddings with my old system with gratious compliments from the clients and my first one was shot with an AV1 and a 50mm. It was my aunts wedding that I shot after I walked her down the aisle and gave her to my new uncle. Kevun told me that the best gift I could give(32 yearold disabled college student)was pictures, he gave me the fuji NPS for the event. My shots were better than the paid pro, and I got the shots she should have gotten but did not. I know the zooms I have would serve me fine, but then knowing EOS glass the primes will enable me to give topnotch work to my clients. For what they are paying me for this service I feel I owe them that much. So yes Zooms if you buy th eright ones are great lenses and can be an asset to any system, just don,t make them a crutch or a substitute for quality work. I would rather harness primes to a my body or put them in a hand altered fanny pack and carry a camera on my eye and one slung across the shoulder to be able to have complete control of my image than take the chance of having a bunch of shots with too much DOF because the lens could not isolate the blushing bride from inbred cousin Elmo in the front row who hasn't bathed and smells liek the previous nights bachelors party., I would also prefer to not have to rely on a lens hood to isolate flare when shooting a mountainscape on a hunting trip, and would liek to be able to shoot an oak tree without too much distortion. Even in this day and age of high tech gadgetry and computer/digital imaging, people who want to get serious about Photograghy should buy a wide/normal tele/tele sytemin a new system, and learn exposure. The primes force a discipline that can only be learned when the ease of zooming in and out is completely removed. BTW this is how I help tutor new students in the Photography program at school. I also stress buying new cameras. For roughly the same money you will spend on a classic, you will get the latest advances in optical technology and image quality gained from that technology. There is a reason I sold the Fd system. In so doing I added my first brandnew camera in 20 years! My new Elan7 which I wouldn't replace for anything, and those wonderful peices of EOS glass which produce the stunning images. Nikon and Minolta can produce the same quality and I here that PEntax can. Hell PEntax must be able to make great glass, they make a great MF system. That will be my next system...Pentax Medium Format 6x7. Most important though, buy film, learn exposure and shoot shoot shoot. and then shoot some more! Most important HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

That´s a point, but remember, every Pentax bayonet lens, brandnew or decades old, will fit on every Pentax bayonet body(except the MZ/ZX-50), brandnew or decades old. No problem using your old camera with a new lens. To use a new (maybe better) lens you do not have to change your whole system like it is the case with Canon, Minolta or Nikon (try using a new lens without f-stop ring on an old Nikon body...)

Note on old lenses: Old (20 years and older) zooms and long-telephoto-primes are generally not as good as new ones, but short-tele-, normal- and wideangle- primes are sometimes even better than the new ones because the optical design has not changed at all.

Note on old cameras: If you are looking for an old body, examine the shutter closely. Some very old shutters (from the 70´s) are made of rubbered silk. If the rubber gets sticky (and it will for sure get sticky sometime, "rubber lives" my Professor used to say...) there is no way to repair the shutter. And a replacement shutter will be too expensive, if available at all. Metal shutters last longer (but forget the repair here too).

All very good advice, however you neglect to mention another factor besides penis size which enters into the expense of the body you buy. As an eyeglass wearer I have had great difficulty over the years seeing focusing screens and viewfinder displays. I need what is called a high eyepoint finder which can be seen clearly from further back. This leaves me with two choices: either I buy a quality manual camera made in the days of glass finders or I buy a pro level slr. Since much of my shooting is candid, event oriented I really need the AF and so am left with no choice but the pay big bucks for a used pro slr. Just a consideration for newbies with glasses.

I really enjoy this section. Forget zooms; regardless of the situation, I get more keepers with my relatively inexpensive 50/1.7. I offer my sincere thanks to the contributors to this web page for recognizing the value of a "simple" 50mm! --tom

I think Philip has done an excellent job of covering this topic in such a short article, and, as usual, photo.net's readers are doing a great job adding to it. My two (or maybe more like 200) cents:

I started using SLRs at age 16 in 1976 with a Canon FTb with 50mm f1.4 lens. Since then I've owned about 40 SLRs and I don't know how many lenses. In my 20s I tended to shoot a lot of industrial landscapes and found myself using 24mm more than any other focal length. In my 30s I found myself liking the 35mm length more and started taking only a 35mm lens on the street. Now, in my 40s, I'm finding myself using 50mm lenses more than anything else. For years I never thought I'd use 50mm again - too boring, too close - but now the 50 is ideal for what I'm visualizing. And I LIKE the shots I'm getting.

50mm lenses aren't inherently boring, as someone claims above, and neither are they the last word in lenses. Don't cheat yourself out of the opportunity to benefit from a fast 50mm just because someone else doesn't like their perspective, but give yourself room to develop preferences for other lengths as well.

Re primes vs. zooms, for a while I owned and used a Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 zoom as my "standard" lens. It's truly a great lens optically, but recently sold this zoom and a 70-300mm and returned to my prime lenses for three reasons: 1) my f1.8 or f2.8 lenses provide brighter viewfinder images than the slower zooms did, 2) I can shoot handheld without flash with much less light and 3) controlling depth-of-field has become more important to me and I just don't want to be without the narrow field of focus a faster lens can provide. (I also wouldn't want to be without depth-of-field preview and am alarmed at how many new SLRs don't have this.)

In many situations my Nikon F5 with 28-70mm zoom and SB-28 flash didn't provide much better results than my zoom-lens point-and-shoot cameras, but with a few fast prime lenses I can use light and depth-of-field in ways impossible without fast lenses. (I do use the P&S cameras when DOF and available-light shooting don't matter but size and weight do.)

So...don't cheat yourself out of the opportunity to limit depth-of-field and to shoot in low light. Use zooms if they work for you, but try fast prime lenses as well.

I find the zoom/prime argument has taken on a new complexion. We are no longer arguing the quality of the lenses, instead we have it down to speed, and may I say "discipline". Single focal length lenses force us to move and look at our subjects from different distances and angles. I have recently acquired some older Maxxum equipment, including a 50mm f1.7 and two excellent zooms, a 35-70mm f4.0 and a 70-210mm f4.0. These are without a doubt the best zooms I have ever used, but I still take more time, and more care, when I use the 50mm.

I am not a professional, but I do some wedding photography, mostly for friends and family. Here I use the zooms because of the speed and convenience, but when I load up some black and white and go out looking for abandoned boats or old fences, I want the 50mm.

I have learned a lot from these discussions, but the greatest lesson was that great images are created in the mind of the photographer and not in his camera bag.

Ira

I agree wholeheartedly with this article’s premise that beginning photographers who are serious about developing photographic skills start out with basic equipment that a body, a 50mm lens and a tripod. I would also recommend a good flash to this basic equipment long before I began a discussion on PC lenses.

It is imperative that a photographer trains his eye to see the world around him as it appears to the film or digital sensor in his camera. This means one has to be able to perceive the world as it appears through the lens. One should be familiar enough with their lenses that they can previsualize what a scene will look like before they put the camera to their eye.

It is almost impossible for a beginner to develop this photographic vision if he or she uses a zoom lens because the perspective is constantly changing. Once a photographer has mastered the ability to see as though through a 50mm lens, he can move on to a wide angle prime until mastered, and then on to a telephoto lens until mastered. NOTE: the sequence of adding the standard lens first followed by the wide angle and lastly the telephoto is less important than the principle of adding and mastering one at a time.

However, zooms are important too – perhaps more so than the above article gives credit. Their utility for sports, candids at events such as weddings, for photojournalism, etc. should not be underrated or overlooked. Once a photographer has acquired and developed a strong sense of photographic vision with his or her base system of prime lenses, she or he should carefully consider adding a good quality zoom lens. Personally, I maintain a system that includes a trio of primes (24mm, 50mm, and 135mm) and a couple of zooms (28-105mm and 70-300mm IS). I use the prime lenses for unbeatably sharp on-tripod shots of static or controllable subjects. The zooms are for everything that requires speed and flexibility.

The debate between photographers who prefer prime lenses versus those who prefer zoom lenses is ridiculous. Photographers that say they will only shoot using prime lenses are like golfers who say that they will only play with a putter because of its precise accuracy. On the other hand, zoom lovers are like golfers that only want to play using drivers because of their range. If you want to take reliably good photographs outside of one narrow specialization, you need to use the right tools for the job. The skilled golfer uses every club in his bag but mastered one club at a time, often starting with the 7-iron. Likewise a serious beginner photographer should build an SLR system one lens at a time beginning and the 50mm is a good place to start.

Very superb article!

The only thing i will change is, to buy a bag after camera and 50mm lens, because i want to take my camera out to nature and it should be protected out there

I think the recommendation to beginners to photograph a wedding is a superb one, providing of course that you aren't THE photographer for the wedding. You want to be just another guest with a camera. Think about it: a wedding offers a great mix of environments and some wonderful opportunities to try out different photographic styles. In the church (or whatever building the ceremony takes place in) it is likely to be darkish and you will probably have to be fairly discreet. Early on in the reception, hopefully you will have strong light (great for getting out the ISO 100 or 50 stuff) and you can stick the camera in people's faces to your heart's content, because at a wedding people fully expect to be photographed, and in any case they are all dressed up and so very unlikely to mind even if they aren't expecting it. You get to try out wide lenses for large group shots, and telephotos for intimate candids. Later on, you probably get another shot at indoor work if there is a disco/dance, this time in challengingly low light, so you get valuable experience at using flash, tripods or both. Best of all, because you aren't the official photographer, it doesn't matter too much if you screw up. If you do get some good shots, stick them in an album and present it to the happy couple. It's probably the one non-registered-for present that they are guaranteed to like.

As someone who is just learning about photography, building a system can be confusing. I use a Pentax SuperProgram body that I bought in the early 1980s but which has basically gathered dust on a shelf until this year. The camera came with a 50mm 1.7 lens. Also during the early 1980s, my now-husband had purchased a Pentax but with a Sigma 80-200mm 3.5 zoom lens. With my new interest in photography this year, I tried using this zoom lens on my SuperProgram... it is an older, heavier lens (but no zoom creep) and I was having difficulty holding the camera still while taking pictures (I don't have a tripod).

I went to a local camera store a month ago, to see what other type of lens I might purchase to enhance my existing system, and I left the store with a Sigma 28-300mm 3.5 zoom lens, as well as 3 closeup filters, a polarizing filter and a UV filter (which I keep on the lens for general protection). I'm now experiencing some frustration because the zoom "creeps" when I point the camera downward, and am trying to get the store to let me exchange the lens for something different.

Reading this article has helped me to understand the importance of knowing WHY you are purchasing a new lens, and should help me to be prepared when I am (hopefully) able to exchange this zoom lens. I couldn't agree more that for beginners it's important to:

(1) keep your camera system basic,

(2) understand why your lenses work the way they do,

(3) know why you want a new lens (i.e. what do you want to do that you can't do now?),

(4) consider the possibility of buying equipment other than a lens (e.g. perhaps I should have bought a tripod instead of a lens), and

(5) go home and think about what you saw at the store... don't make a snap decision to spend your hard-earned money without doing some research.

Thank you for writing an excellent, useful article, and for the various additional perspectives and comments.

I appreciate this site very much, and the "Building a 35 mm SLR system" part of it especially so. But what went on in your head when you hinted at amateur fotographers they might go ahead and photograph a wedding? And without much of a warning either ...

It's the photographer using equipment, and not the equipment alone, that takes the picture. Good photographs can be taken with all sorts of different photographic equipment, ranging from simple and affordable to complex and expensive. The main advice offered in this section is sound: to start out with relatively modest, basic, simple and inexpensive equipment, and learn as much as possible from taking a lot of pictures before beginning to acquire more specialized equipment. Having said that, I would suggest this alternative for consideration. Start with a relatively inexpensive manual, rather than automatic, SLR (or rangefinder) body. If it doesn't have a working built-in light meter, buy a hand-held light meter to use with it. By using a manual camera and a meter, you will begin to learn about how different combinations of lens apertures and shutter speeds affect the appearance of photographs, about how to determine exposure settings for the results that you want, and about what different kinds of film to use in different picture-taking situations. Start with only one or two lenses at first. Personally, I'd suggest a relatively fast (large maximum aperture) moderate wideangle prime (fixed focal length) lens, something like a 35mm f/2, for your first lens; and a relatively fast moderate telephoto prime lens, something like an 85mm or 90mm f/2, for your second lens. Moderate wideangle lenses are very flexible lenses that can be used successfully in many different situations. Moderate telephotos are very effective for taking portraits of people, not just posed pictures but informal candid photographs in a variety of settings. The two-lens combination of a moderate wideangle and a moderate telephoto can handle a wide variety of photographic situations effectively, including the majority of situations one is likely to encounter when one is photographing people. I would suggest a fast normal prime lens, something like a 50mm f/1.4, for your third lens. Fast normal lenses provide an extra stop or two of lens speed for use in really dim lighting, and a perspective fairly close to that of the human eye. At f/2 or faster, all three lenses would be fast enough, when used with moderately fast (ISO 400 to ISO 800) film, to take pictures without flash in a wide variety of light environments. While zooms can be perfectly good lenses, they tend to be on the slow side, so that while they're fine for using with bright outdoor daylight, they may lack flexibility to handle other situations such as dawn, twilight, or home interiors in the evening without using flash (which can be disruptive in social situations). Similarly, while very wide lenses of 24mm or less, and long telephotos of 200mm or longer, can be very useful in some situations and can take photographs with considerable visual impact, they tend to be specialized lenses with characteristics that are not always easy to use in everyday picture-taking situations, and that tend to require more experience to use effectively. To sum up, a manual body, a light meter, a 35mm f/2, an 85mm f/2, maybe a 50mm f/1.4, and a padded camera bag to carry them and some film in, ought to cover the majority of your photographic needs for quite some time. As with any other advice of this type, viewpoints differ, and "your mileage may vary." If you don't like my advice, try something different -- but I hope it will be helpful to somebody who reads this.

Clearly from looking at photos I have submitted, I am a worthless amateur who knows nothing about photography. That being said, I normally, when going out for my daily "what can I photograph today" trip, carry only 3 lenses in my car. A 28mm, a 50mm and a 135mm. Sometimes I may also bring a 2x converter. The 3 lens combination (each with it's own UV filter already attached)usually meets every need. Usually it is the 50mm on the camera. It is very rare for me to attach the 2x multiplier, perhaps once in every 300 photo opportunities do I find it worthwhile. Therefore it usually stays at home. I have other lenses, zooms, and 500mm primes but usually find little reason to lug them with me. Beyond that, if I somehow lost my 3 prime lenses, I do have a nice (and never used) 35mm to 70mm zoom sitting on a shelf that could, in a pinch, substitute for two of them and adding the 2x converter would, if the light was bright enough, allow shots in which more magnification was needed.

To me a 40MM lens is the ideal standard lens. It is a shade wide which is the way I like it.