I think I can finally say that I have reached that point where I can do most jobs with what ever lenses I have at hand. Of course I have preferences and can feel a little lost if my first choice is not available, but I have learned over the years to embrace the first world problem that is using second or third choice.

Obviously a random selection of three primes could really bite me, like a choice of three wide angles to photograph the Americas cup….. from the shore, or equally a set of premium super telephoto’s to use in a 6’ deep studio, but assuming a normal spread for a normal job, I can happily adapt to three prime lenses even if they were picked by someone else.

My happy place?

Right now if I had to choose three lenses to most of my work with it would look something like this;

A 40-45mm equivalent* or near (my f1.8 25mm Oly is actually closer to a FF 45mm). Over 50 is too portrait specific, wider encroaches on the next lens too closely. The humble 40mm*, is closer to the true mathematical standard lens being the sensor “diagonal”, is a gentle take on the tighter 50mm, less aggressive and closer to what the eye sees (80mm matches our eye magnification, super wide our dual lens coverage, but 40mm is closer to our natural perspective).

A 28-30mm equivalent* which to me is the balancing point between wide and standard lenses covering around 70-75 degrees. Wider is too much for me normally, only used when space or width dictate.

A 135-150mm equivalent* being long enough to be called a true telephoto, but not so long that it becomes a specialist lens. The big gap this leaves is ok. For this lens perspective more is more.

The ability to crop is an important factor here, so in all cases, these lenses are wider than may be ideal, while rendering a “normal” looking image.

My old favourites in Canon full frame were the 35 and 135 L’s, but I was equally happy with their slower cousins or the Voightlander 40mm. Strangely, I adapted well to them as 55 and 210mm lenses easily enough and embraced my 85 as a 135, then using the 17-40L as a handy 28-65 standard (and a more stable lens avoiding its dodgy FF corners).

This is possibly when I learned to break the “must haves-according to the time tested formula” thinking and replace it with a “what do I actually want, bugger the numbers” mind set. I learned I actually tend to use longer lenses and for me 28mm is my preferred wide angle limit. I was an early days crop sensor poster boy.

Next?

Something a little more purposeful in a portrait lens, like a 60-70mm equivalent*. This is the perfect pairing with a 40mm, basically giving you a pair of 50mm’s with some mild bias.

Then a long lens, 300-400mm*, assuming there is a need.

Finally a wide, from 18-20mm*. More than that sets my teeth on edge for most subjects. I do have the 8-18 Leica, but can’t remember the last time I used its widest end. I have little use for these, but have to consider the needs of others.

*

Ok, what if it was only two lenses and your needs were “normal” (editorial/street/people) in nature?

The 40/60mm* combo is appealing if a little limited, so if limited to two lenses only, I would go for a stronger 35/90-100mm* pairing, to avoid the two looking same-ish.

Another option here and one that is at odds with my “which prime” theme here is the all-rounder zoom (24-XX) and a fast prime. The lens that works best here is the 50mm, which provides the strongest Bokeh power with useable, versatile coverage. My S5 kit is nearly a perfect fit here with the 20-60 kit and 50 f1.8, but a favourite travel kit is the 12-60 kit Panasonic and 17mm f1.8 Olympus.

One lens?

My head says a 35-40mm does most things gently, my heart wants the world to always suit a 28-30mm, my gut goes more toward an eminently practical 45-50mm.

It is more about perspective (of the lens) than anything else. Magnification is often a matter of moving your feet or cropping. Perspective is fixed.

If you only ever have access to just one lens it is going to determine your future growth path, so choose carefully (maybe the case for zooms). My own experience is shorter fixed lenses rarely fail to produce, but zoom telephotos are wise.

Annie Leibovitz for example, said in one of her books that her style and signature look were probably influenced by her first lens, the 58mm on the front of her first camera (Minolta SRT 101). I guess this is the same for many of us, but I would love to know if this forced perspective helps a young shooter develop an “eye” better than a zoom or makes no real difference. One lens can I guess teach you just as much about what you don’t have.

Why primes?

The advantage of primes over zooms is a little dated, or more to the point some advantages are no longer a given (lower distortion, sharper primes etc), but they are still there. As a rule you will get professional quality with a base model prime, which is not guaranteed with a kit zoom, but at the top end, the best zooms can match most primes.

What the primes do offer is good lens speed (f2-8 or faster) without the premium size or price and when push comes to shove, they will always off the very fastest glass. Generally speaking pro zooms and the slowest primes overlap at f2.8 with some rare and notable exceptions.

They are also cleaner to pre-visualise with.

So, what is your “desert island” lens focal length or lenses and even if you are a zoom lens user, where do you find yourself more often than not?

*Full frame focal length used so halve these for M43 etc.