The Kit.

[OsmosisStudios]

There are many ways of designing and putting together a good, useful and versatile photography kit. Depending on what kind of camera you use, your shooting style, and your ideal subject matter, your kit will vary greatly.

The problem with the ideal kit is that most components probably aren't available. In this I will outline my ideal kit and ask you for yours, whether it's real or not! I'll be assuming a certain level of sanity in this endeavor, as well as a modicum of sense in terms of budget.

To wit:
My current kit is as follows. All examples I will be giving will also be Nikon-system examples.

Nikon AF-S 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 DX
Nikon AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX
Nikon AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D
Nikon SB-800

I've recently gone and analyzed my shooting habits, shown below.

As you can see, the majority if my shooting is in the 18-70 range, which is exactly what my midrange zoom lens covers. There is also a large spike at 10mm, 50mm, 200mm and 300mm. Also, disregard the spike at 0mm: this is the result of the inclusion of photos taken on film, and therefore without EXIF. These should be lumped into the 50mm spike.

The 10mm spike is simple: I shoot wide and, with the 10-24, really quite enjoy the perspective it gives me. There is a smaller spike around the 15/16mm range, which is just slightly wider than the 18mm wide end of my mirdrange zoom The 50mm spike is because it combines my two favourite lenses (18-70 and 50mm). The 200mm spike is from my old (and now sold) 18-200 zoom and the 300mm spike is from the 70-300 at maximum focal length.

Here's the thing:
For what I shoot, I could get away with a considerably smaller, lighter and better performing kit. Ideally, it would include the following:

AF-S 10mm f/4 DX
AF-S 16mm f/4 DX
AF-S 18-70mm f/4 DX VR
AF-S 50mm f/1.4G
And a long prime, likely an AF-S 300mm f/4 VR

That would at least cover my bases. Based on my current wishlist, what I shoot and what I'd like to be shooting, I'd also like to add the following.

AF-S 105mm f/2 DC
AF-S 150mm f/4 Micro

This would allow me to cover all my shooting with excellent mid-range equipment that provides a great quality and a reasonably low price.

You'll also note that all but two of the lenses are f/4 lenses. This is for several reasons. First, it assumes a certain level of plausibility (especially on the wide end) for technical specifications, but it also assures that lenses don't cost an absolute fortune to buy.

The other reason for this is that the 50mm and 105mm lenses would be portrait lenses, and therefore are the only ones that would require a wider aperture.

Of course, if money were no object, I'd also like to replace the 300mm f/4 with something longer and faster (a 400mm f/2.8). That, however, is cost-prohibitive at this stage.

Finally, note the lack of zooms. There is only 1, and this isn't because I like primes better (though I do). The simple reason is that I can do almost everything I do with primes. On either end of the focal length scale, I tend to use my lenses at their extremes (10mm or 200/300mm). These, therefore, act essentially as low-speed, lower-quality primes. The reason I haven't replaced the 18-70mm lens with a set of primes is simple: the zoom is lighter, smaller, and considerably more convenient than the primes I would need to replace it (Ie a 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 70 group of lenses). Most of the adjustments here are minute, but would result in a lens change. The other factor here is that the 18-70 zoom is, with little exception, just as good or better than the current primes. Assuming an updated f/4 VR version of the zoom were possible, it would also likely be even better.

So, now that I've laid that out, what does your ideal system look like?

[i speak in math]

How did you make the graph? I wouldn't mind creating a chart like that for myself.

[OsmosisStudios]

Since I'm on a Mac, I used PhotoStats to get the information then ran it through the sister software DataGraph to get the graph you see here. For PC, ExposurePlot should do something similar

[dakwegmo]

This is a brilliant way to approach new equipment purchases. I just ran ExposurePlot on all my photos from last year, and was surprised by the results. The majority of my photos are shot at focal lengths of 27mm, 80mm, and 160mm. This is fascinating, because, more often than not I'm shooting with my 18-200mm because I always have it with me. That I gravitate towards these focal lengths with a super-zoom seems to tell me something about how I see things. These aren't slight spikes either. Over 2000 shots at each of these focal lengths, with fewer than 400 in all the other lengths I have available.

The question now I guess is what to do about it? The 28mm f/2.8 D looks like it would be a no-brainer, though I'd need to try out the 85mm and 185mm primes to see if the might be close enough to the focal lengths I favor. Well really, I'd need to try them all out. It's one thing to make a decision based on solid data, but if it doesn't feel right when using it, then it doesn't make much sense.

Still, it's fascinating to break down my shooting habits this way.

[BCampbell]

This is interesting, because I'm planning my upgrade path now.

There's the dream kit, and there's the realistic kit, for me. My realistic kit is intended to be a 5D(MkI), 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L, and 50mm f/1.4.

This covers about 98% of situations I shoot. I'd like to do more birding, but that would add something like a 400mm f/2.8L plus 1.4x and 2x converters. The affordable solution is a 500mm t-mount adapted to a Rebel (800mm effective).

But, I'm toying with the concept of going prime only. That would be the 5D, 28mm f/1.8, 50mm 1.4, 100mm 2.0 (or 85mm 1.8), and 200mm 2.8. This would save at least $500, and I would be faster at all focal lengths except 200mm, and while they aren't L lenses the quality is close and arguably inconsequential once the primes are stopped down to the maximum speed of the zooms.

The dream kit includes something like a 5DMkII, 14mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 400mm 2.8, 600mm f/4, 1.4x and 2x converters, etc, and etc, and etc.

[OsmosisStudios]

As I mentioned, in some cases it's counter-productive to go the prime route. While you generally do get better image quality and faster apertures, space, useability and straight up convenience often preclude the investment.

[wulf]

I haven't analysed my habits in anything like the same level of detail but I think I would have a couple of spikes at 50mm and 90mm (my two wonderful, manual prime lenses) along with a smattering from the wider end of my 18-55mm and the longer end of my 70-300mm. The other analysis I would do, given time, is look at aperture as well. I suspect that it would show a bias towards wider apertures, often beyond what can be done with the two zoom lenses and hence one of the reasons why I don't use them so much.

Oh, and my Lensbaby. I've had that equipped with the star aperture disk for a long time now (effectively f/4). Sometimes only a Lensbaby will do!

Wulf

[OsmosisStudios]

Wulf: If you're on a Mac, PhotoStats gives you focal length, aperture, ISO, shutterspeed, WB, shooting mode, focus mode, etc. It also allows you to sort by camera or by lens.

[CaptainNH]

There's no room on this forum for a sensible analysis of shooting habits. What if my wife were to see this thread - how would I justify the spur of the moment, just have to have one, for fun, lens purchases?

More seriously, I occasionally do a rough and ready analysis of my shots, mainly out of curiosity.

I know that I use my 17-40 more at its wide end, and, when I'm using my 70-200, I generally shoot at both ends with a peak around 100mm.

There is a problem with this kind of analysis though. My analysis tells me that I never shoot at 600mm - does this demonstrate that I don't want/need to shoot at 600, or just reflective of the fact I don't have a 600mm lens?

My current zoom arsenal includes:

• 17-40mm f/4L
• 24-70mm f/2.8L
• 70-200mm f/2.8L
• EF 2x II TC

By combining these with FF and crop bodies - I can theoretically cover the full range from 17mm to 640mm.

Where I find analysing my shooting habits really useful is in planning my prime purchases. Looking at where in the range I shoot most of my images, I know that I'd get better use out of a 24mm f/1.4L and/or an 85mm f/1.2LII than I would a 50mm f/1.2L.

(Actually, this is exactly the kind of analysis that would get funds approved by my wife )

I'm curious about your 1500shots at 5mm in your analysis Os

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by CaptainNH

I'm curious about your 1500shots at 5mm in your analysis Os

It's called being awesome

It's likely from P&S cameras. I ran the software through my entire HD of images, so there will be a few from an old S3is and a few other P&S cameras.