There’s some photographic advice on the Internet that I would like to address.
The first one is that one should take a look at the focal length statistics for his pictures in Lightroom, for the last year or so, and see what focal lengths they are using the most, and then consider buying a prime lens in that focal length. So, essentially, if you see that you’re shooting your 24-105mm lens mostly at 35mm, getting a good 35mm prime might be a thing to do.
The corollary is that you should focus more on what you’re doing the most, and eventually sell the lenses you’re using the least.
I understand the logic behind the advice, but it’s somewhat akin to a minimalist advice that says you should get rid of your winter clothes because you haven’t been using them for almost nine months. Not the greatest idea ever. The fact that you’re using something rarely doesn’t mean you don’t need it. I made some of my best work with a fisheye and an ultrawide, and yet I barely used them at all in the last few years. Sure, if you look at the stats of my pictures in the last three years, almost none are made with a fisheye. Then again, if you look at the prints on the walls of my home, of five pictures in total, two were made with a diagonal fisheye. That’s 40%. It’s a huge percentage for something I use so sparingly. Obviously, it has a place in my kit; I use it rarely, but when I use it, I make a disproportional number of winners. Some lenses are of the kind that really require special circumstances, and if you overdo it, it becomes counterproductive. Not everything lends itself to fisheye or wide angle, or to macro, for that matter. I didn’t use the macro lens much in the recent years, because I overdid it before; however, when I used it, I made a disproportional number of good pictures with it.
Once-a-year lens.
Statistically, I use certain focal lengths infrequently, but I do want to have an excellent lens in that focal length for when I do want to use it. So, frequency of use or a number of pictures made with a certain lens doesn’t really say much. It can even lie. For instance, when I take pictures of insects, I need to use rapid shutter in order to catch them in motion properly. I also do that with a telephoto. As a result, there will be a disproportional number of telephoto shots with long focal lengths, which will overwhelm the stats, which don’t know it’s all one or two motives. What I know and Lightroom doesn’t, is that I actually use a telephoto rarely, but when I do, I use it in rapid fire mode and create a deluge of similar transitional shots.
So, my logic is that if I use a certain lens once in five years, but when I do it will be to make a unique shot on top of the island or a mountain, that is a lens I simply must have in my arsenal. Frequency of use doesn’t mean anything.
Also, the logic of “if you’re not using a certain lens much, why get the best lens of that type?” It’s because when I do use it, it needs to shine. I might not use the 50mm frequently, but when I do, I want to fall on my arse when I see the results in Lightroom.
The second thing I keep seeing is whether one should use zooms or primes. Personally, I have more primes than zooms and I use them more, but I think one should use the best lens for the job at hand. For instance, when I’m visiting Plitvička Jezera, I shoot zooms exclusively; mostly 24-105mm f/4, but also prominently the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. I actually don’t use the 24-105mm that much otherwise, but there, I wouldn’t be caught dead without it, because it’s so useful and appropriate for the location. I use it basically twice a year, but I would have to re-purchase it immediately if it were lost or broken. So, basically, I shoot mostly with primes but I find zooms to be essential. You need to be reasonable and practical about those things. If a pin hole in a sheet of paper worked best as a lens for some specific task, I’d have it in my arsenal.
Zoom zoom!
The third thing, and that one is really annoying, is that “real” or “serious” photographers use X, where X is either film, medium format, large format, Leica, rangefinder, Hasselblad or something else. Honestly, the easiest way to know a poseur and a wannabe is to check for such statements, because if their work spoke for itself, they wouldn’t have to augment it with statements about the technology they made it with. I’ve seen very good photographers use literally every kind of equipment under the sun, and I’ve seen incompetent people with more money than brains spew bullshit about special magical equipment more times than I care to remember. Just shut the fuck up with that bullshit. If you think a Leica or medium format will make you a “true photographer”, go ahead. I just don’t want to listen to that crap. Mystical properties of camera brands don’t have the power to make pictures good, unless the camera happens to be in the hands of a skilled artist. You’re not “serious” because you use a Nikon. Using Nikon makes you a Nikon user, not a serious photographer. Developing your style and art over years and decades makes you a serious photographer.
Taken with absolute shite.
Also, perspective is important. People have filled art galleries over decades with pictures taken with cameras and lenses that would be routinely called crap on dpreview and YouTube. You can take excellent pictures with lenses that are objectively not that great, if you know what you’re doing. Also, to quote Adams, there’s nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. Let’s end at that.