If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???

[CanonOregon]

Fellow Photogs,

Just for the "what if", so if you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they be...& if you want, why?

For my 7d? 10-22mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm general photography
Wildlife, scenic wish list? 5d body and 15-35mm, 24-70mm,  600mm

[sandymandy]

Samyang 35mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.2L and Canon 200mm f/2

[vlim]

My Choices

The expensive ones :

24-70mm f/2.8 L II
100mm f/2.8 L IS
300mm f/2.8 L IS II

The realistic ones :

17-40mm f/4 L
100mm f/2.8 L IS
300mm f/4 L IS

 

[MarkIII]

16-35 2.8 II
24-70 2.8 II
70-200 2.8 II

Covers the focal range for me.  If I can't get what I need with those lenses, I need to move myself not get a longer lens.

May I ask how often do you shoot (let's say) at 91mm or 194mm focal length? Why do you need to cover the whole range? Just curious .
My experience with zooms was that I tend to find the sweet spot or two and use it like a prime lens (to minimize the distortion, aberrations, softness etc.).


Well it is funny that you ask that question. This weekend during a wedding ceremony I was confined to the balcony and ended up having to shoot my 70-200. Yes i did shoot quite a few at either 70 or 200, but i shot almost as much at the in between spots as well. From the 141 shots i had with that lens: 59 were shot at in-between 70 and 200mm, 72 were shot at 70 or 200mm. So to answer your question i was shooting quite a bit in -between.

I feel there is a need to be able to cover a wide range of focal range in order to adapt to where you are shooting. In a church you cant always shoot from up front. A prime lens limits your abilities in my opinion on where you are able to shoot from. Yes, i have a 50 1.4 which i will bust out to have some fun with and experiment, but it ends up limiting me. I dont see the strong need for lenses faster than 2.8. I havent had an issue with a 2.8 lens in any situation, if it becomes too dark, thats when the flash comes out-typically only the dancing portion of the reception.

And now with the sharpness and quality from the 24-70 II it makes the 2.8 that much better. After using the lens this weekend, i realize why it is worth its money. Sharp, excellent colors, great IQ its a great lens in my opinion. I was very happy using it on my 5dmkIII.

[yoho]

Canon
{
 EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
24-70mm  f/2.8L II
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II
}

[RuneL]

16-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

[UrbanImages]

Well since I have them and are the most used: 17-40 4L, 24-70L and 70-200L II

[AvTvM]

full frame:
* EF 14-24 / 2.8 L   ... optically like the Nikon but usable with 82mm filters
* EF 24-70  / 2.8 L IS  .... like the II, but with IS and for less than 2 grand
* EF 70-200 / 2.8 L III IS ... like the II, but all black, like the 24-70

Crop:
* 10-22 / 4.0 ... optically further improved, constant f/4.0, weathersealing
* 17-55 / 2.8 II IS ... optically unchanged, but weathersealing added
* 50-150 / 2.8 IS   .... optically as good as the 70-200 II, but black and as compact as the Sigma, less than 2k

 

[Jim Saunders]

Given the 24-70 and 70-200 I have now, either a wide-angle or a Sigma 50mm f/1.4.  That those three are the same filter size is a convenient perk.

Jim

[dbduchene]

Canon 16-35 F2.8 L
Canon 28-70 F2.8 L IS
Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS II

and a 2X teleconverter
I am planing and this in fact becoming my travel bag with a 5D and 7D body along with my 15mm 2.8 fisheye and I cannot figure out why canon stopped making the fish eye

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

24-70mm f2.8L II
70-200mm f2.8L IS II
300mm f2.8L IS II OR 400 f2.8L IS II

Gary W.

[tyfn]

24mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L
70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Right now I have a Canon XSi.

[glowsplint]

24-70L II
70-200L II
85 1.2L II

Probably these 3.

[expo01]

First off, it is a really hard choice to make. But considering the various types of things I do, I might come up with following answer.

17 TS-E (close call between the 17 and 24, choosing the 17 because of the density in switzerland (architectural) and the good usage in landscape work)
50 1.2 (got to have a standard lens, the 1.2 is just better than all the alternatives, even though it's not the best lens ever created. to be fair, there is a lack of good 50's)
70-200 2.8 IS II (i just have to have this one. this lens gets the most use any day. perfect for portraiture, sporting events, speeches etc.)

[ecka]

First off, it is a really hard choice to make. But considering the various types of things I do, I might come up with following answer.

17 TS-E (close call between the 17 and 24, choosing the 17 because of the density in switzerland (architectural) and the good usage in landscape work)
50 1.2 (got to have a standard lens, the 1.2 is just better than all the alternatives, even though it's not the best lens ever created. to be fair, there is a lack of good 50's)
70-200 2.8 IS II (i just have to have this one. this lens gets the most use any day. perfect for portraiture, sporting events, speeches etc.)

Good choice, a lot of logic in that