Reasons to have multiple lenses in the same focal length/AOV

IMG_2672b copy
85mm lenses and equivalents on native or adapted formats – yes, I probably have too many. Upper left row: Nikon 85 PCE Macro, Zeiss 1.4/85 Otus, Nikon 24-120/4 VR, Hasselblad HC 2.2/100; middle row: Zeiss 1.4/85 Milvus, Canon EF-S 18-55 STM (APS-C), Nikon 85/1.8 G, C/Y Zeiss 2.8/85 Leitax converted to Nikon mount; lower right row: Zeiss Hasselblad CF 2.8/80, Zeiss Hasselblad C 2.8/80 T*. I wanted to add the Hasselblad HC 35-90 zoom, but it wouldn’t fit in the picture.  And there also used to be a Zeiss 1.8/85 Batis, Zeiss ZM 4/85, Nikon 80-400 G VR and Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO, but I’m recovering now…

Though this post may seem like a hoarders’ justification more than anything – I can assure you, it isn’t. Whilst you could probably pick one lens in each focal length or angle of view and hack your way into making it work, there are some pretty solid reasons why you might not want to – and this is something I’d like to discuss today. Trust me, there are reasons why I’d prefer not to have to carry two or three seemingly overlapping lenses on assignment – but often there’s simply no choice. Here’s my logic, using the 85mm-equivalent focal length as an example.

_8B24127 copy
Tricky shooting conditions: low light, and mostly monochromatic. Wide open, any poorly corrected lens will display serious aberrations.

Outright performance
This is the reason you’d choose an 85 Otus over the 85mm mark on your zoom, for instance. If you must shoot in very low light and therefore probably wide open, on a high resolution body, you probably the best lens you can get. Or you may be looking to extract that performance under ideal conditions – ideal apertures, fast shutter, 100% controlled lighting. This level of performance of course comes with tradeoffs in size, weight and portability; not to mention criticality of focusing before you start to lose all of that hard-won resolving power. It’s for this reason that when I have the opportunity, I’ll default to manual focus and live view: all AF areas are of a finite size, which means that they will almost always cover a subject that occupies a range of different distances. This variation in distance may be great or small, but the higher the resolution the sensor, the more critical focus becomes – and the plane which the camera chooses to focus on is not always going to be your intended one. For obvious reasons, this is obviously not practical with moving subjects.

_8021058 copy
A fleeting moment, impossible without AF.

The corollary of the previous statement: when I’m shooting fast-moving documentary work, especially under lower light conditions, AF is a must to have anything like a respectable keeper rate – especially if there is no opportunity to reshoot the image. I use the 85/1.8 G here because it focuses quickly and accurately, and performs well wide open (though obviously not as well as the 85 Otus). For those of you wondering why I don’t use the f1.4 G, it’s to do with performance tradeoffs: the lateral chromatic aberration at maximum aperture is quite visible and distracting, and if I have to use the lens at f2 or smaller anyway to divest myself of it, there’s not a lot of point in paying the significant premium or carrying the extra weight (plus f1.4 is only 2/3 stop faster than f1.8 anyway). There is not much difference in AF speed, either. For similar reasons, if I’m working under bright conditions or mostly stopped down, I’ll use the 24-120 zoom.

None of us like to carry more than we have to, but there’s always a tradeoff between image quality and overall size/weight. Where that diminishing returns curve kicks in depends on the individual, of course. However: if I’m not going to need wide apertures, or AF, I like the C/Y Zeiss 2.8/85: nice rendering, fast enough, and absolutely tiny. Plus, if you’re using it at f8 or smaller for landscape work – there’s almost no difference between that and an Otus anyway. If you replace all of your 1kg f1.4 primes with 250g f2.8 primes, that’s enough weight saving for a very decent tripod. And I know which will open my shooting envelope wider and make the bigger difference to image quality…

_8047231 copy
Tilted focal plane to render the entire watch back in focus – single shot, no stacking.

Special purpose needs
I think this category is pretty self-explanatory: you’re not going to produce very good macro images with a lens that cannot focus closer than 1m, even if you use extension tubes. The optics simply aren’t optimised for close range reproduction (the exception perhaps being the 85 Otus, owing to its degree of correction – with extension tubes, it does perform nearly as well as the 85 PCE Macro even close up). Even so, you might get away with this at lower resolutions or output sizes. However, you can’t cheat extended depth of field or perspective control: tilt and shift are tilt and shift. It is for this reason that the 85 PCE is the only real choice for this kind of work unless you want to focus stack, which might not be possible in some situations.

_7R2_DSC3855 copy
Difficult to demonstrate this one at web sizes; what I’d like you to pay attention to here is the smoothness of out of focus areas.

Specific rendering characteristics
Perhaps the best example of this isn’t an 85mm; it’s the (in)famous f1.0 Leica 50 Noctilux with the swirly bokeh. It’s undeniably distinctive, but this comes with a related problem: it’s too distinctive. Everybody else who owns this lens will also shoot it wide open (who pays a premium for a f1.0 lens to use it stopped down when there are better alternatives?) and land up with images that look the same. This is perhaps an extreme example, of course. Let’s take the two Zeiss 85mm lenses: the Otus 85 delivers ultimate resolution at all apertures but at the expense of smoothness of background out of focus areas under some circumstances because of the aspherical element; the ‘bokeh balls’ are sometimes seen to have texture. The aspherics are part of the optical formula required for that level of apochromatic correction. On the other hand, the Milvus 85 has no aspherics, and a hint of coma and both lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration wide open, but extremely smooth transitions and out of focus areas. The CA on the Milvus is mostly gone by f2.8, but the bokeh ball texture on the Otus remains. This difference can be quite visible in some kinds of portraiture, for example – which is why I keep the Milvus around.

_8B28517 copy
Not quite 85mm: 75 was required, 75 was available (but not with a prime.)

There are times when you need just a bit more or just a bit less – and you can’t physically move, either through a lack of anywhere to go or a consequent change in perspective and foreground-background relationship. Or, you may simply not want to change lenses given ambient environmental conditions – the only thing for it is a zoom, of course. The highly polarising 24-120/4 is my choice here: it covers just about everything, is fast enough, good enough quality-wise, and pretty much all you need so long as you have enough ambient light. (Of course, your mileage may vary if prefer shallower depth of field; I work stopped down most of the time so it makes no difference to me.) Sometimes, those edges can make or break an image – it’s nice to have the choice. Just don’t get lazy and start making huge compositional and perspective changes with the zoom ring rather than your feet…

H51-B0004440 copy
100mm on a 44×33 sensor is roughly 79mm – close enough…

Different formats
I think this is perhaps the most contentious of all points here, hence my leaving it for last. The most obvious reason is that we may want more or less DOF for a given angle of view and aperture (and be unable to stop down or open up more for various reasons) – thus necessitating a change in format to achieve the desired presentation. More complex is that though a given angle of view should render foreground-background relationships and projection identically for an ideal lens, the truth is that not all lenses project or render ideally, which is why we have the various kinds of distortion. In practical terms, it is very difficult to make a wide angle that has a flat plane projection; there’s invariably some barrel distortion that changes the relative proportions of the subjects and the way they appear to us. It may be a subtle difference of a couple of percent at most, but it’s still noticeable – even if we don’t consciously pick up on it. It is for this reason that most of the time, a 10 or 14mm lens on a smaller format will not look the same as say a 28mm lens on medium format. Coupled with this, we have depth of field considerations: even though we may have the same angle of view, 10/2.8 won’t render the same as 28/2.8 because of the difference in real depth of field. Now, here comes the contentious bit: due to optical design limitations*, in general, the larger the format, the less distorted the rendering** – even if you have the same overall angle of view.

*Part physics, part system related, part ‘what-can-you-do-at-a-given-price-point’ – people buying a small sensor probably aren’t willing to pay for or carry a perfect 12mm, though it could of course be made.
**By a similar token, if you’re paying for medium format, you’re probably going to be willing to pay for and carry that perfect 28mm.

I hope at the end of this you can see why lens selection at a given angle of view isn’t a straightforward thing, even if you’ve only got one mount or system. There may not be that many native choices for some systems, but adaptors complicate the mix significantly: especially those that allow movements when stepping down from a larger image circle to a smaller one (e.g. medium format to 35mm, or 35mm or APS-C or M4/3). Just beware of planarity issues as always, though the compromise might be worth it for infrequently encountered situations. It might not be worthwhile investing in a tilt shift macro if you don’t shoot off a tripod very often, or require high magnifications, for instance. But at the same time, a zoom might not cut it you do a lot of portraiture.  I really think the only thing you can do is identify the most common kinds of shooting situations you encounter, and work backwards from there in the most commonly used focal lengths (shooting for a while with a zoom and then doing a little EXIF analysis might help here). MT

Some of the lenses mentioned in this post are available from B&H or Amazon:
Nikon AFS 24-120/4 VR** – review B&H Amazon
Nikon AFS 85/1.8 G** – review B&H Amazon
Nikon PCE 85/2.8 Micro** – B&H Amazon
Zeiss ZF.2 1.4/85 Otus APO-Planar** review B&H
Hasselblad HC 2.2/100** – B&H


Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography. You can also support the site by purchasing from B&H and Amazon – thanks!

We are also on Facebook and there is a curated reader Flickr pool.

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | 2012 onwards. All rights reserved


  1. Collecting lenses is no different than collecting houses or stamps or Etruscan art. If you can afford it or if it has something to do with your work, fine. If you have Gear Acquisition Syndrome and hoard just to have more stuff, it becomes a problem. We all search for perfection and happiness but having more lenses will only satisfy us for a short time

    • We’re basically saying the same thing: know why you’re doing it, and don’t use it as a crutch for some other larger problem… 🙂

  2. Hello, excellent and thought provoking article as usual. I’m particularly curious about your impressions of the Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO…which I see you’ve let it go. I gather it either didn’t fit a niche use-case for you, or wasn’t unique enough in it’s presentation to warrant keeping it. I do mostly etherial landscape work, and would look to pair this with my Voigtlander 20mm and eventual 40mm if I bought it [all of this on a 5DS]. My major want here is Leica/Zeiss-like micro-contrast, character, and depth. Perhaps that conflates too many more characteristics than you would [some see Leica and Zeiss as tremendously different, I see much of what I like in both.] Your critical eye on such things exceeds my own…but as they say…I know it when I see it. The 20mm has it for me. Any observations you might have on the 90mm, or the 40mm for that matter, would be most appreciated. Thank you for a wonderful website and body of work. Truly amazing.

    • Too low overall contrast, and a somewhat flat-rendering lens; good for what I think you want, but not good for the ‘clean/crisp’ presentation I personally favour. It is somewhat similar to the 20mm in rendering though. Not tried the 40.

  3. Thanks Mr. Thein for another very interesting article. I purchased the Zeiss Milvus 100mm Makro based on some of your photos and comments regarding the Zeiss Classic 100mm Makro and I love the lens’ output and the tactile experience that it delivers. I was set to purchase the new Zeiss Milvus 18mm f/2.8 lens when it became available, but became a little dishartened when another reviewer seemed to be getting results with the Milvus that were not much different from a Rokinon lens that he used in his tests. “Not exceptionally sharp in the corners” was mentioned in his concluding remarks concerning the Milvus. Any thoughts on the 18mm Milvus and while I have your attention, any thoughts on the new PC NIKKOR 19mm f/4E ED. Thanks!

    • Not tried either yet, sorry. Unknown optical performacne aside, the 19mm would probably be my choice here as I’d prefer perspective correction over speed.

  4. Hello Ming Thein
    Did you ever use the sigma Art lenses? Or don’t you like the rendering?
    I like the 50mm and now the 85mm a lot.
    The large and heavy but good Sigma 85 ART combines fast AF with good quality @ f1.4
    It has some longitudinal aberrations and some purple fringing till about f2.8 but other than that i see no weak spots.
    More contrast and better flare resistant than the 85m PCE; clear image at f1.4 unlike the 1.4G AFS Nikkor ( +faster AF)
    maybe you have another 1.1KG lens to add to your long 85mm list.

  5. you have a way with words as well as focal lenghts!

  6. This maybe a novice question, but would a tilt shift lens such as the C/Y PC distagon 35, be useful in landscape photography to avoid focus stacking? For some reason I assumed they were mostly for macro/product work.

    • The 35PC is shift only – no tilt. Focus stacking is independent of lens and can be done with any lens; if you use a lens with tilt then the whole idea is to avoid having to do focus stacking at all.

  7. Robert E Good says:

    Thanks. I now feel a bit more comfortable about having lenses with the same or overlapping focal lengths. Your analysis and rationale is more nuanced than mine has been. For me it is has been size and weight vs the need for speed in low light situations or the need for a zoom for the reasons you give. Also, I have to admit I just really like certain lenses for my own mix of reasons. It is nice to have this topic so well articulated.

    • Those are good reasons too – though I find that you tend to carry one or the other depending on the situations you anticipate (e.g. 85/1.4G vs 85/1.8G) and always feel a little compromised. Paradoxically, the best lenses in terms of light gathering ability and wide open performance are also the hardest to focus – I’m of course talking about the Otii…

  8. Hi. Wondering if you have used the Nikkor 85mm PCE with tilt for landscape work? I currently use 90mm macro at f20+ to obtain sufficient DOF for this kind of work which also exhibits low transmission and requires extreme adjustments for correct exposures (up to 1-1.3 under). Rather annoying but it does AF which I prefer. Any alternatives come to mind? (think your flatline landscape image example with the 24-120. ) Many thanks.

    • My landscape subjects are far away enough that f8 or even f5.6 is usually sufficient, but if you’re needing f20 – you’re way past diffraction and will be losing resolution anyway; so yes, the 85 PCE would be a good choice. I’ve used it for this kind of thing before, but generally don’t because landscapes tend to equal hiking and as little weight as possible is desirable…

      • Thats why the C/Y glass is really great for that

      • Sorry to belabor this, but thinking MF digital to approximate 85mm ff for the moment, any further thoughts about using the Leica S 120mm T/S or the Hasselblad t/s 1.5converter with say the 80mm H lens to obtain 100% dof with landscape work at these longer FLs? What about FLs beyond 95mm with tilt. Any suggestions other than say a 2×3 LF with belows using specialized ts lenses by rodenstock or schneider?

        I have a continuing project which expands to a need for something akin to LF.

        Thanks very much!

  9. Great article as always Ming.
    Too bad there is not “one for all occasions” lens.
    The milvus , render wise is almost perfect. Somebody tested the Otus 85 on the 100mp sony medium format back and it was covering most of the sensor. It definitely covers the smaller 50mp ones. If the milvus 85 is anything like that , then it is going to be one hell of a ride with the fuji GFX.

    • Remember the MF sensors are actually less demanding of overall peak resolution because their pixel pitch is larger; the Otus can keep up with 3.8u M4/3 pixels wide open; 5-6u MF pixels aren’t going to stress it. It’s the edges of the image circle that are outside the original design envelope.

      As for the Milvus – should be similar; we’ll still see the lower level of correction than the Otus (i.e. longitudinal CA in the middle of the image circle) but probably a bit more of a resolution drop towards the edges.

  10. I am guilty and I will do this again and again. There is nothing like selecting the right lens for the right occasion. For an amateur, this planning makes me happy. Thanks for a great article.

  11. Choo Haw Ding says:

    Excellent article! A photographer needs to know his/her lenses very well indeed. I really ‘respect’ you on this subject matter.

  12. Excellent article as always, thanks a lot!
    Could you please share your opinion about 85mm equate on M4/3, particularly Panaleica 42.5/1.2?
    Whether it is comparable to using 55mm on APS-C or 85mm on FF with apertures 1.8 and 2.4 respectively not technically
    but somewhat philosophically and estheticaly? I mean those things which some names “feel of volume” or “air” and – maybe this is more phisical – in terms of bokeh quality?
    Of course within the frameworks of the tasks you have pointed in your article, too.
    Thank you very much!

    • Not used the 45/1.2, sorry. I think it honestly defeats the point of M4/3 to have a lens that huge and expensive…

    • …however, the Olympus 45/1.8 made it into the author’s recent “Ultimate lens list”, which implies a good option.

      MT: “Another one of those small, light bargains. I find it needs a little stopping down to have truly satisfying bite, but its character remains smooth throughout the aperture range rather than crisp. It has a very nice rendering style and would be great for video if it had mechanical manual focus, but at the price, I think we probably can’t complain.”

      • It did, because a) I’ve used it extensively; b) it’s fantastic bang for the buck and a good performer period, c) it fits with the whole M4/3 ethos.

  13. I keep some camera systems alive for work, because of certain lenses. I’m only redundant at near 50mm, though it’s something I use often. Selecting different lenses can be like using different paint brushes (I have lots of those too). 😉

  14. Parting with a good lens is just wrong. Keep up the good work!

    • It is, but if I held on to every one that came my way…I’d need a second mortgage to pay for it, and a third mortgage to have somewhere to house them all!


  1. […] as a counterpoint to the earlier justification for being a lens hoarder, I have a feeling this is going to be one of my most unpopular posts ever. It will be widely […]

%d bloggers like this: