Choosing the right lens

'What lens(es) do you recommend?' is one of those questions that crops up fairly frequently in my inbox. Given that I own more than a dozen and use most of them pretty regularly, it's one of those 'simple question, not so simple answer' scenarios.

it's worth establishing a few baselines. First, there's no such thing as the 'right' lens. Sure, I have a few favourites. But although I'll always try to choose the best lens for the job, that's not always possible. I may have chosen to leave the 'right' lens at home because of space or weight restrictions, for example. And in any case, the lens I pick for a particular shot may not be the one picked by another photographer faced with the same situation.

Decisions, decisions

Second, it's easy to get caught up in the 'range at all costs' doctrine. Simply put, this gear-headed approach holds that the best lenses are the ones that cover the greatest possible range from wide to long, preferably with no gaps. Woe betide the photographer who skimps by leaving a lens at home. Now, I know pro bike photographers who ride everywhere with the gamut of lens choices from fisheye to 300mm f/2.8 (and get amazing results). But there's a heavy price to pay for this approach... literally. Unless you have the fitness and sheer bloody-mindedness to carry a 35lb-plus pack around with you all day, it's not a setup that's likely to work for you. It doesn't work for me, most of the time.

Related to this last approach is the idea that you'll miss shots if you don't have every base covered. It depends, of course, on what you're trying to achieve, but in many scenarios I'm a big advocate of the 'less is more' approach. A smaller - but well thought-out - selection of lenses can actually help you get better pics by focussing - pun intended - your attention on a limited range of options. It's quicker, less likely to result in pissed off riders as you faff around changing lenses, and it's much kinder to your back.

With the ground rules out of the way, what are the choices? Here's the way I see lens selection, from wide to long. Your mileage may, of course, vary. Oh, and whatever lens(es) you choose, bear this in mind: you get what you pay for. It's better to have fewer better quality lenses than more inferior ones. Modern dSLRs are easily good enough to show up rotten image quality, and there are a surprising number of poor performers still out there. Luckily, they're easy to spot - they're often (though admittedly not always) the cheap ones.

1. Fisheye

Good for

- getting the shot in really tight spaces

- adding a little dynamism

Watch out for

- overuse

- unnatural-looking distortion near the edges

 

Have fisheye, will climb tree

My fisheyes (10.5mm for DX and 16mm for FX) are firm favourites and usually come along for the ride - they're small, light and versatile. It's often possible to get a shot with a fisheye that just wouldn't work on any other lens, but it's important to make sure that you're using it for the right reasons. As a rule of thumb, if the first thing you notice about a pic is that it was shot on a fisheye... it might have been the wrong call.

No, really - the world is flat

2. Ultra-wide (including ultra-wide to wide zooms)

Good for

- getting into the thick of the action

- working in tight spaces where a fisheye will add unwelcome distortion

- adding speed, dynamism and depth

Watch out for

- unwanted distortion, particularly to wheels, near the corners of the frame

- too much background with no link to the foreground

Feel the pull

I seem to see in ultrawide terms. How else to explain the fact that most of my pictures over the past decade have been shot on a 17-35mm, or thereabouts? Used with discretion, the corner-pulling drama of an ultrawide grabs the viewer by the collar and yanks them into the picture. It's easy to overdo, of course, but if you told me I'd have to shoot with just one lens from now in it'd be an ultrawide.

Caution: objects in viewfinder are closer than they appear

3. 'Normal' (including standard zooms)

Good for

- getting used to your camera

- mimicking the way most people see the world

- subjects at close-ish to moderate distances

- not breaking the bank

Watch out for

- the 'meh' factor

It's small and there's not much light: break out the 50mm

Back in the day, 35mm SLRs would come with a 50mm lens as standard. Nowadays you'll find a 'standard' zoom instead, but chances are it'll cover the rough equivalent of 28mm to 70mm, or thereabouts. Or, in other words, a bit wide to very short telephoto. You can shoot most subjects with a lens like this. They're small, light, relatively inexpensive and usually reasonably decent optical performers.

Look into my lens, not around the lens

Why, then, am I not a bigger fan? You'll rarely find me using a lens in the 35mm to 80mm range, unless it's for a specific purpose like a close-up product shot or a portrait in low available light. The answer's simple: I find this range of focal lengths a bit uninspiring. Neither wide enough to be of much use in tight situations nor long enough to really start compressing perspective, it's all just a bit too predictable for my taste.

But don't let that put you off. I spent years shooting with a 50mm (and then a 28-70mm) before graduating to longer and wider glass. And the humble ol' 50mm f/1.8 is still a bargain that should find its way into any photographer's bag: cheap, small, light, useful in low light and probably sharper than most zooms, even at f/2.8.

4. Long (including telephoto zooms)

Good for

- compressing perspective

- isolating elements in a scene

- pulling distant subjects closer

Watch out for

- lack of dynamism in moving subjects

- accurate focus

- over-reliance on autofocus (and centred subjects)

It's just a large rock about 30 feet way. Honest

One of the most popular second lenses is a telephoto zoom. What's not to like? You can stand right where you are, twiddle a ring and bring subjects closer to you without putting one foot in front of the other. But bringing things closer isn't what long lenses do best, in fact. They're more useful for compressing perspective, making a dramatic background even more so and isolating a subject with their inherently limited depth of field.

It's that last characteristic that trips most people up, actually. Long lenses need accurate focussing, so it's tempting to leave it all to the camera. But subjects slapped in the middle of images rarely make the most interesting compositions, so it pays to learn how to prefocus. It's also harder to get a sense of movement in images shot with long lenses.

5. Superzoom (the one box, do-it-all solution)

Good for

- times when space or weight is really (really) restricted

- avoiding lens changing

Watch out for

- mediocre image quality

- indecisive framing (zoom zoom syndrome)

Why not ditch the bag full of lenses and just buy one do-it-all superzoom? It's a fair question, and the best answer is this: for my money, superzooms impose too many compromises to be worthwhile except in situations where a single lens is the only practical solution. image quality tends to be mediocre, manual focussing is usually all but impossible and the huge range tends to stifle creativity and encourage a fixed position, turn-the-ring approach to framing.

What to buy?

So... if you currently have a dSLR with a standard zoom, what should you buy? Most people will opt for a telephoto zoom first, but I'm not convinced that's the best option unless you particularly want to shoot events. Mountain biking's one of those rare sports where it's often possible to get in close (and use flash), so an ultrawide zoom would probably be top of my list.

If you must have a telephoto zoom, buy the best - and fastest - you can afford. Entry-level zooms usually feature f/5.6 apertures at the long end, which quickly becomes limiting as light levels fall. Go for at least f/4... and f/2.8 if your bank balance (and back) will stand it.

Don't forget prime (non zoom) lenses, either. Often overlooked, they offer amazing optical performance, brighter apertures and often lower bulk and weight. Watch out for 85mm or 135mm second hand bargains as a faster, lighter alternative to a slow, bulky zoom.

Want more info? You can read more about all my lenses and the different combinations I use in different circumstances here.

Comments

[Andy]

Nice article. Bookmarked for referral later.

[Niels]

Thanks Seb this is very useful. Will probably buy an ultrawide zoom before the course in August :-)

[David]

heck, I used the alps trip as an excuse(*) to buy a 16-35

(*)not that i needed much of an excuse. :)

[Kelli]

I have a Canon Rebel xti, and a couple of lenses, 50mm f/1.8 and Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-?. I have tried taking shots of him doing the tricks and other wooden death traps in the forested areas around Kelowna, and it's just not working. I don't want to use the speedlite, and was told to get an 85mm f/1.8 for low light. Would it be better than the 50mm?

[Seb Rogers]

Hi Kelli,
No. It won't gain you anything - you'll just have to stand further back and focus more carefully (because it has less depth of field than the 50mm).
Shooting in forested areas is tough - there's not much light and the contrast is either really low (cloudy day) or impossibly high (sunny day). You really need flash to put you back in control, and it really needs to be remote flash.
I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but I'm certain the 85mm won't solve your problem...
HTH :)