Often you get one lens included when buying a camera. But what if you want another one, which one do you need to buy? This article may be of help when choosing the best lenses for your photography.
When you start with photography, the camera you choose often comes with a single zoom lens. This lens is usable for regular photography. It is perfect for your holiday, children, a landscape, or your pet. But when you start to grow a preference for some kind of subject, that one lens often is limiting the possibilities. That is when you start searching for a second lens, or a replacementIt may be very difficult deciding what to choose, because there are a lot of different lenses available.
Some lenses are cheap, others will break the bank. You could spend a fortune on lenses, and probably still miss the one you really need. Looking at the second hand market learn how a lot of lenses are sold because it never left the bag. That is why I wrote this article with a basic lens choice for different types of photography.
First of all, only buy a lens because you need it, not because you might need it. And don’t buy too many lenses, because you probably will use only a few. Having a lot to choose from is also difficult. This article shows nothing more than a starting point. The combinations are my own personal choice, based on my experience. After you get more experienced in the discipline, you will find out what alternative you may need, or from which extra lens you would have benefit.
Although most of the images are of Canon equipment, this article is not about camera brand, lens brand, or other discussions on what is good and what is better. The lenses I show are just an example, concerning focal length and zoom range. For every brand there is a similar lens available, in the original brand of your camera, or a third party lens. Use whatever you like.
Be careful not to buy every lens you can get your hands on. Often it is not needed to have all focal lengths in your bag. Don’t get the disease called GAS (Gear Acquire Syndrome), because it only makes you suffer from having too much choice, and a backpack that is much too heavy.
For landscapes you would like to have the ability to capture a wide scenery, or details in the landscape. A wide angle in the range from 16-35mm is a great choice, but make sure you also have something like a 70-200mm lens available. These don’t need to have a f/2.8 aperture; often f/4 is sufficient. But if you want to use these lenses indoors also, f/2.8 or larger may come in handy.
Eventually you might want to have an even wider lens, if that kind of landscapes has your preference. Something like a 12mm ultra wide angle would be a great extension to this kit.
Alternatives for the 70-200mm can be a 70-300mm lens, or a 100-400mm, and you might think of a 24-70mm lens if you don’t like the extreme wide angle images.
Portraits and Wedding
I prefer primes for my weddings and can shoot nearly everything with this wonderful set of lenses. It is also perfect for portraits and model photography. The large aperture makes a beautiful shallow depth of field possible, although you don’t need to use that time and time again. Because these lenses are light sensitive, they also perform very well in dimly lit venues
You might want to extend your set with a 135mm lens, or even a 200mm, in case you need to shoot from a distance. You also want to prevent having too much primes available, because it can force you to change lenses a lot.
If you don’t like primes, a 24-70mm and 70-200mm will be the lenses to go for. And preferably with an aperture of f/2.8 if possible. Not only for the shallow depth of field, but also for dimly lit venues.
Architecture and Real Estate
For real estate I prefer the tilt shift lenses. They provide the possibility to do perspective correction on the location. Often you don’t need more than these two focal lengths and there is always the possibility to crop afterwards in post. If 17mm still is not enough, you can make a panorama using the shift option.
If you want to shoot some details, a 50mm tilt shift can help, but you can use a 24-70mm lens also. If you prefer having a normal lens, a 16-35mm lens may be the only lens you need to have. It don't have to be f/2.8 because a large depth of field is almost always needed.
Stars and Milky Way
- EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III
- Laowa 12mm f/2.8
For stars and Milky Way photography an extreme wide angle may be the first lens you would want to use. It also enables you to shoot relatively long exposures without the risk of star trails. A large aperture helps capturing the maximum amount of light.
Eventually you might like a 24mm or 35mm prime lens. Often these have a maximum aperture of f/1.4, which allows a lot of light to enter the lens, and you can even turn one stop down to get more sharpness. The focal length can help capturing the core of the Milky Way in more detail.
There are a lot of alternatives, like fisheye lenses and other extreme wide angle. Fixed focus lenses may have some preference for the benefit of having large apertures.
- EF 24-70mm f/2,8L II
- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II
I don’t shoot sports, but I have done so on occasion. I find the 70-200mm a very nice all-round lens for this kind of photography, and a 24-70mm can be of benefit when you are able to get close by. The large aperture helps getting a fast shutter speed and prevents an ISO value that is too high.
I can imagine you need more focal length on occasion. In that case I would think of a 300mm or 400mm lens with the largest aperture available, or affordable. And perhaps a 16-35mm when you want to get very close.
An alternative can be a 70-300mm, 100-400mm, of 150-600mm lens, although you might end up with the need for high ISO values. The maximum aperture of these lenses is often limited to f/5.6 or smaller.
Wildlife and Birds
- EF 24-70mm f/2,8L II
- EF 100-400mm f/4-5,6L II
If you love to shoot animals with a camera, you need a long lens. The first I would choose is a 100-400mm lens, which is a very versatile focal range. I would combine this with a 24-70mm lens for those occasions you want to capture the animal with its surroundings, which I love to do. If you have the money, you could add a 600mm lens to your set. But a tele converter can help also.
An alternative could be a lens similar in reach, like a 70-300 or a 150-600mm lens. Perhaps a 300mm prime would do perfect, although you could mis the zoom ability.
There are much more disciplines of photography, of course. If you would have to make a choice for only two lenses for your photography, which would it be and why? Please share this in the comments below.
If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.
Very good article and well qualified suggestions.
For me, it was 45mm and 63mm for a very long time before I got 32-64mm and 100-200mm.
I would agree with most of your suggestions for each genre. The only prosumer lens I own is the 16-35/4LIS because I’m usually on a tripod while using it, the F2.8 and TS-E versions cost 2-3 times as much and I don’t use it very often. Besides, I find that Capture One allows my to straighten those horizontal and vertical lines if needed.
True, straighten lines is possible in post, but it will degrade the quality where the correction is the most extreme. Although I would agree if you say it won't be visible in daily use, only with very large prints. :)
Yes, if I was shooting Architectural or Real Estate listings more than once a month I would consider a TS-E.
How about street or someone who is an all rounder?
I would suggest a 24-70 and 70-200, or something similar. If you use crop, you should go for a 15-85 and 70-200 or similar. That is what I would advise.
I find it difficult to advise something for street photography. I would use my Fujifilm X100t for that, with its fixed 23mm lens (35mm fullframe equivalent); a small camera with a near standard lens to be able to go close without screaming PHOTOGRAPHER... I think ;)
I'm a photojournalist, but if I were to do more street photography I would actually recommend one prime and one zoom. The prime I would recommend is a wide aperture "normal" focal length such as an 35mm f1.4 or even 50mm/58mm f1.4 depending on brand you use. The second, the zoom would be either a 70-200mm like Nando recommended or even a 100-400mm lens. It's really nice to have the wide aperture on a "normal focal length" lens and you can zoom using your feet, which I find helps with composition and framing, etc. The zoom is great for when you want to remain at a distance and get more of those candid moments, where the subjects may not see you right away, or at all! Great recommendations and very useful article here for beginners. As an 18 year veteran photojournalist the best recommendation I can give to any beginner would be upgrade your glass not your camera, buy the best glass you can afford and keep the camera you already have. I would prefer a $2000-$3000 lens on a $400 camera any day over vise versa!
85mm 1.4 or 1.8, 24-70mm 2.8 ... I'm good for most jobs
For me it would probably be 35/1.4 and 500/5.6. 35 one for 90% of what I like to capture (travel, city, firends and events) and 500 for wildlife.
In reality I own 35/1.8 which I find a bit too wide sometimes and this is the only lens I was using for past 2 years on my DSLR. I would like to get that sweet Nikon 500mm prime, but will most likely end up getting 200-500 (if any) because, sadly, I do not own money printer.
I think it great you can shoot only with a 35mm. Amazing
Lukasz don't forget about buying used and I would recommend an older Nikon 200-400mm f4 VR over the 200-500mm if you can hold off and save up a few hundred extra dollars. The 200-400mm f4 VR original version is still an incredible lens and extremely sharp, well built and extremely fast to focus and can be had for about $1800-$1900 on the used market. The extra stop of light is huge and so is extra shallow depth of field a 400mm f4 lens can provide and it takes the 1.4x teleconverter quite well when you need extra reach.
10-24 f4 and 16-55 f2.8. Or if it was my Nikon DSLR it’s the 10-20 f3.5 and 16-80 f2.8-4. Although I’d end up missing telephoto I guess.
Of course missing a tele lens depends on your kind of photography subjects. What do you shoot?
Mainly landscape but i dabble in a bit of street/walkaround and sometimes motorsport. so possibly the 10-24 and 55-200 would be a better solution, but then can anyone drop a 'normal' zoom?
For landscapes a tele lens is a must. You can do so much with that. I believe I wrote an article on Fstoppers once about this.
It is always possible to keep the normal zoom. I mentioned two lenses in this article, but three is also possible. You seem to miss the tele lens, so that would be a valuable addition to your lenses.
I would keep a "normal" zoom lens, since that is the one that can also be used if you are on holiday, for instance.
Yeah defintely, I’m a sucker for that wide angle look mind, getting right up close to the foreground at 10mm can look awesome.
Funnily enough I’ve been trying to zoom in a bit more with my landscape shots lately, as you say it can offer so much, can pick out the best details in a landscape.
Both are great: up close with extreme wide angle, or zooming in on details in the distance. When it comes to sunset or sunrise, I find a extreme wide angle won't show the nice colors at the horizon anymore, because it becomes so small.
Yes very true, I like the layering you get from a tele too, takes you into the scene more than a wide angle I think.
35 f1.4 and 85 f1.8. I like including the environment/surroundings and have the option to blur the background; and even shooting around with 2 bodies on, a relatively light system.
I love those two focal lengths. I know exactly what you're talking about :)
As a landscape photographer, I couldn't agree with this list more. In fact the only 2 lenses I own are the 16-35 & 70-200, both f4. I have owned other lenses, and sold them all because I don't use anything other than these two, not enough to justify keeping them anyways!
And it also makes hiking much more convenient, not carrying so much weight.
Good choice, I think.
“ … what if you want another one … ”? Wouldn’t *need* trump *want*?
We want to need another one ;)
I appreciate you including many types of photographic genres, but I would like to have seen different formats as well. For amateur format my choices vary with the type of photography I am engaged in.
18-200mm APS C
16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 24-80mm, 80-200mm, 300mm. FF
24-80mm, 80-200mm, 50mm. FF
16mm, 24mm, 500mm. FF
24-80mm, 80-200mm, 200-500mm, 300mm. FF
24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 105mm. FF
6x6.....50mm, 80mm, 150mm
It is about focal length, not about the type of camera/sensor. That could be a completely different article. But you triggered me and I think I will write something about that also. Thanks
Nevertheless, nothing is changing when you use a different size sensor. Just correct the focal length with the crop factor, and you end up with the same field of view.
Yes and thank you. My reply was directed at photographers who are beginners that might choose medium format as a first choice. BTW...it would be great if you could do an article naming focal lengths of lenses throughout the sensor sizes. That would be helpful for many people, yes?
I previously wrote something about focal lengths and sensor size. Perhaps these articles are interesting https://fstoppers.com/originals/advantages-crop-sensor-landscape-photogr...
But I will look into crops sensors again.
Thank you sir and keep up the good work with these articles.
Honestly loaded question with no right answer.
Too many permutations. New photographers rarely know what they want to shoot or stick to what they think they want to shoot. Shooting anything and everything isn't pointless but you will come up with your own kit in time.
You can generalize, see all comment suggestions.
I agree; there is no right answer. Only my personal advice.
If you don't know yet what to shoot, start with a 24-70 and a 70-200. With that you can shoot 90% of all sorts of photography. It might not be the most ideal choice, but you can change/upgrade eventually
Thing is, surely people aren't 'starting' with a full frame camera so the 24-70/70-200 thing is irrelevant?
It would be 18-55 and 55-200/70-300?
For those who don't start with a full frame: true. Absolutely true
I have both full frame (5D Mark III) and crop (7D Mark II), and decided on a "less is more" approach by using lenses with wider zoom ranges for "all around" work (24-105mm 3.5-5.6 on the 5D and 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 on the 7D). If I need to reach out a little longer I have a 70-200mm 2.8, and have considered adding a 100-400 as well.
I think that is a good choice, and a flexible one.
It would be even more flexible if you decided to skip the EFs lens, that can only be used on the 7D. If you stick with EF lenses, you can use everything on both cameras. It is just an idea... :)
Good article. I have a shelf full of very expensive glass paperweights. My go-to lenses for Nikon APS-C are a Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 and a Tokina 100mm f/2.8. I photograph a lot of musicians on stage in small venues (bars, clubs) and also like walk through the woods for landscapes. This two-lens combo is compact, provides sufficient range, gives me the ability to shoot action, macro and portraits...all in all the pair are good for what I like to do without breaking my back nor my bank.
It is a nice combination of lenses. Perfect for small venues, and sufficient for landscapes and woods.
Most photo enthusiasts starting out probably won’t have the budget to buy many of these lenses. Started out with the em10 (the mark i) with the 50mm 1.8 and 80-300mm equivalent. The 50mm was nice and sharp, but what surprised me the most was that I was mostly using the telephoto. It was slow, and quite soft along the corners, but the versatility was actually surprisingly good for may subjects, including landscape and “macro,” owing to the multiple focal lengths and the close focusing distance. I’ve moved on to the 24-70 and the 70-200, but I would recommend beginners to just use what they’ve got and take lots of pictures. Once you get used to the lenses, the limitations themselves will make you more creative.
A good advice.
Thank for posting!
I use mainly flexible 24-105 f/4, which easily covers my needs, plus 50mm f/1.8 for low light conditions and when 'more bokeh' is needed. Perfect set for reasonable money, and also lightweight (which matters, if You hike a lot like me).
That's also great set for beginners!
Indeed a great combination of lenses.
Great article. Personally, I am a Nikon guy. I shoot with 24-70 f4, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.8 majority of all shooting. I am looking to get a 14-30mm f4 for landscapes, 85mm 1.8, and call it a day.
I may get a 1.4 lens, and you know why.
It's a very extensive set of lenses. It sounds something like the content of my bag at weddings. Nevertheless, I shoot with the 85mm and 35mm for about 80% of the wedding day
For weddings and events 24mm and 105mm macro.
A surprising combination. But I think (I am sure) that will do the trick also very well. Thanks for sharing.
I feel "sports" is a very broad term when it comes to photography. Theres so many types.
Team sports, individual sport, action sports, extreme sports.
I don't think your suggestion is wrong, but maybe not right for all.
Obviously the 70-200 is a great all around lens and it would be in my 2, but the 24-70 for extreme sports I would change out for a fisheye.
The look is unmatched and a classic in the extreme sports world.
That is true. The choice I made is perhaps the basic setup, from where to go towards the kind of sports you are going to shoot. The fisheye is very special, and not everyone will like the look of it.
Thanks for adding this comment. It is a good addition
Absolutely, not quite for everyone but pretty much anyone shooting photos in the extreme sports field has one in the bag. I've met one who refuses haha. Definitely a good write up and i know its difficult to pack every type of shooting in to one write up. Good stuff