Lenses are great. I even think they are more important than the body you hang them off. A good lens should outlast several DSLR bodies. But I could also suggest that lens envy is the common cold of photography. Prolific, mildly debilitating, and so far incurable.
I've have lost whole days of my life wondering if a 24-70 f2.8L would be a good replacement for my 24-105 f4L. One's faster. One's got a greater range. and so on. Or should I get a prime lens to offset any (mythical) shortcomings of my zoom lens.
It's even harder if you are starting out with nothing, and no experience.
Who's reviews can you trust? The magazine dude who gets paid by the manufacturer? The troll on the forum that bashes a lens, but you have never seen any of his photos, and you don't even know if he owned one? The dealer?
My dealer lets me try anything in the store. My own experiences have borne out that his advice is golden. But it might take a year or more to establish a relationship like this - if you even have access to a pro dealer.
As a quick aside - if you trial the lens at a local dealer, then buy it online because it's cheaper - you are a wiener! You are paying for more than the product at a physical store. Try and get after-sales support from B&H from overseas and you'll know what I mean.
I shot an entire trip to England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland on a single camera - a Konica Hexar 35mm Film Camera, with a fixed 35mm lens. I never once failed to get a shot because I couldn't zoom in. I walked closer. I got great portraits, because I walked up to people and asked them.
So it is possible to just use one lens. And not even a zoom lens.
I've shot over 12,000 images this year on just my 24-105 f4L zoom. Yes, it would be great to have a little more length for sports work - but if you are privileged enough to stand in the middle of the field during an event, a great wide end is just as vital.
If you want to be happy with just one lens - it's all in your mind.
I'm not going to change lenses while a horse and rider jump over me in the middle of a rainy, dusty field. So picking 1 good lens was essential. But it was more important to spend the money on quality rather than a quantity of millimeters.
Henri Cartier Bresson, the father of the 'defining moment' shot with mostly a 50mm prime lens.
The big mother zoom f2.8 lenses and high ISO imagers and film stocks are a very recent development. You can live without them as millions of lesser equipped masters of photography have proven.
If you want to be a great photographer, take great photos. Don't let you gear get in the way, because photography is about seeing, not spending.
I would suggest that the 17-55mm kit lens that Canon adds as a lens cap to most new DSLRs is actually a very capable lens. Far sharper than most lenses (prime or zoom) that preceded it in the 200+ years of photography's history.
Or, if you really like the discipline of a prime (and it's a great way to learn) get the sub $200 50mm f1.8. The 'nifty fifty' more than holds it's own in the most crowded category of standard lenses.
I chose the Canon 24-105 f4 L firstly because of it's outstanding image quality, and secondly, because it covered a useful range. Nothing truly awe inspiring like a 10mm or a 400mm - but something I could leave on the camera and get on with shooting.
Will I buy more lenses? Yes. But I will buy the best money can buy, because I will get longevity out of them. I will never have to panic every time a new lens comes out that 'might' best my own collection.
And I will buy from genuine needs that are determined by my clients, not my gear lust.
I've been looking for something a bit longer for sports and some of my portrait work. Rather than read 300 reviews on 20 lenses, I simply asked a few pros I trust, what's the best (money is no object) and they all pointed to the same lens.
At the top of the food chain is usually only 1 or to 2 easy choices. That saves you a lot of mucking about. But until then, use the lens you have. No excuses.
