Thanks for the great video! This helped me make my first lens choices in large part because of the details you mentioned in this video. I'm a new photographer who hates splurging on things I won't use. So I spent a year practicing composition and editing on my smartphone. After convincing myself I like photography,I then rented a few cameras and settled on the X-T5, which I'm literally purchasing this weekend. Because a major limitation of my smartphone was getting good enough zoom during travel, I also settled on the Tamron 18-300 as my first lens. However, it's conspicuous, heavy, and dark, so I spent a lot of time agonizing over a second lens to compliment it. It came down to the Sigma 18-50 or a Fuji 23mm f2. The former light, inconspicuous, and more flexible, but the latter is brighter and even lighter and more inconspicuous. I couldn't decide! The point in your video where your said limiting zoom to family or travel really hammered home for me that a prime is better to hone composition for the sake of the art. But since my main concern right now is capturing memories for an upcoming trip, I've decided on getting the Sigma 2.8 to compliment the 18-300. I'll use the Tamron most of the time during the day. I'll use the Sigma indoors, at night, or when I need to be inconspicuous. I'll then hone composition when I'm back home using the Sigma fixed at 18, 23, 27, 35, or 50 to see which I'm most comfortable with focal length I'm most comfortable with for street and cityscape in order to choose my prime in another year or so. So I'm somewhat going against your advice by starting out with two zooms. But your clarity presenting the strengths of zooms versus primes helped me make my decision given my own needs. I really appreciate it!
Thank you, I'm glad my thoughts helped you to make a decision. That's exactly what I was trying to do - lay out the pros and cons of both approaches and let the viewer decide what's best for them. There's nothing wrong with two zooms, especially when they compliment each other. You have a nice setup now that will let you focus on making photographs and preserving memories. Good luck!
Thanks for another nice video! I have really come to like the 40mm full frame equivalent as lens in between 35 and 50mm. I have had the least success with wide angle lenses, especially wider than 20 or 24mm. Whether you need telephoto lenses depends a bit on where and what you shoot. In the Netherlands there is a lot of water, meaning zooming with your feet can mean taking a dive. I therefore prefer a little longer zoom range than 70mm, preferably a 24-105mm or even 35-150mm. In urban areas, up to 70mm is certainly fine. And with many full frame cameras, you can also switch to APS-C mode, allowing the reach of the lens to be digitally extended by 1.5x at the cost of a slightly lower photo resolution, whereby 70mm can become 105mm for occasional use. If you like to photograph smaller animals, like birds, a 400 to 600mm is really the way to go. But I fully agree; 1x standard zoom and 1x 35mm or 40mm would do most photo tasks with ease, perfect starter kit.
Hi Edwin, to dive for a photo would be a true dedication! :) I am planning a video about 40mm lenses - it's the overlooked outlier, cramped between the most popular focal lengths and so is hard to love. But I am now testing a few of them extensively and time will tell. Telephoto lenses are awesome for a lot of use cases but not as a starter lens. Learn to see and compose with basic tools - is my approach.
Shooting Fuji APS-C I prefer the 18mm on the X70, the 27mm on other camera bodies, HATE the focal length of the 35mm/f2, and now looking at the 60mm/f2.4 to get the longer distance and macro. I've tried that 35mm repeatedly and I hate the pics. It's always too wide or too close. The 10-24mm/f4 is heavier but actually works for street, landscape, and portrait surprisingly.
My setup is Leica CL + Sigma 24mm f3.5. It's close to 35mm and can focus on the macro level. 👍✌️
That's a nice and compact setup. I need to try the Sigma lens on my CL too.
Thanks for the great video! This helped me make my first lens choices in large part because of the details you mentioned in this video.
I'm a new photographer who hates splurging on things I won't use. So I spent a year practicing composition and editing on my smartphone. After convincing myself I like photography,I then rented a few cameras and settled on the X-T5, which I'm literally purchasing this weekend. Because a major limitation of my smartphone was getting good enough zoom during travel, I also settled on the Tamron 18-300 as my first lens. However, it's conspicuous, heavy, and dark, so I spent a lot of time agonizing over a second lens to compliment it. It came down to the Sigma 18-50 or a Fuji 23mm f2. The former light, inconspicuous, and more flexible, but the latter is brighter and even lighter and more inconspicuous. I couldn't decide!
The point in your video where your said limiting zoom to family or travel really hammered home for me that a prime is better to hone composition for the sake of the art. But since my main concern right now is capturing memories for an upcoming trip, I've decided on getting the Sigma 2.8 to compliment the 18-300. I'll use the Tamron most of the time during the day. I'll use the Sigma indoors, at night, or when I need to be inconspicuous. I'll then hone composition when I'm back home using the Sigma fixed at 18, 23, 27, 35, or 50 to see which I'm most comfortable with focal length I'm most comfortable with for street and cityscape in order to choose my prime in another year or so.
So I'm somewhat going against your advice by starting out with two zooms. But your clarity presenting the strengths of zooms versus primes helped me make my decision given my own needs. I really appreciate it!
Thank you, I'm glad my thoughts helped you to make a decision. That's exactly what I was trying to do - lay out the pros and cons of both approaches and let the viewer decide what's best for them.
There's nothing wrong with two zooms, especially when they compliment each other. You have a nice setup now that will let you focus on making photographs and preserving memories. Good luck!
Thanks for another nice video! I have really come to like the 40mm full frame equivalent as lens in between 35 and 50mm. I have had the least success with wide angle lenses, especially wider than 20 or 24mm. Whether you need telephoto lenses depends a bit on where and what you shoot. In the Netherlands there is a lot of water, meaning zooming with your feet can mean taking a dive. I therefore prefer a little longer zoom range than 70mm, preferably a 24-105mm or even 35-150mm. In urban areas, up to 70mm is certainly fine. And with many full frame cameras, you can also switch to APS-C mode, allowing the reach of the lens to be digitally extended by 1.5x at the cost of a slightly lower photo resolution, whereby 70mm can become 105mm for occasional use. If you like to photograph smaller animals, like birds, a 400 to 600mm is really the way to go. But I fully agree; 1x standard zoom and 1x 35mm or 40mm would do most photo tasks with ease, perfect starter kit.
Hi Edwin, to dive for a photo would be a true dedication! :) I am planning a video about 40mm lenses - it's the overlooked outlier, cramped between the most popular focal lengths and so is hard to love. But I am now testing a few of them extensively and time will tell. Telephoto lenses are awesome for a lot of use cases but not as a starter lens. Learn to see and compose with basic tools - is my approach.
I love Summilux 35 1.5 for aps-c.
Great lens
One of the best :)
Shooting Fuji APS-C I prefer the 18mm on the X70, the 27mm on other camera bodies, HATE the focal length of the 35mm/f2, and now looking at the 60mm/f2.4 to get the longer distance and macro. I've tried that 35mm repeatedly and I hate the pics. It's always too wide or too close. The 10-24mm/f4 is heavier but actually works for street, landscape, and portrait surprisingly.
I was the same but now 35mm is my everything lens. Funny how it can change :)