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

[mjardeen]

This is a great question that has a pretty simple answer for me:

16-35 L II (I own the 17-40 L)
24-70 Tamron (I own the 24-105 L)
70-200 F4 L which I already own

The reason I take the F$ is sharpness and weight. The Tamron because it has IS and is lighter. The biggest upgrade I want is to sell my IR converted 20D, convert my 5D to IR, and then get the new 6D that is rumored to be coming for higher resolution color.

IR has been an artistic dream for me and one I would suggest to anyone.

 

[gary]

My choice would be:

The new 24-70 mkii L hopefully with IS
The 70-200 mkii L IS (already have this and wouldn't be without it)
The 200-400 L IS with built in 1x4 converter.

All Canon I know, I have not really tried a lens from another brand as I'm happy with Canon. I picked these as I believe it will give a full range of options from 24mm-560mm, mainly as I can't seem to pick any one special area I just love to photograph anything.

 

[daniemare]

When I travel I normally take only three
Tokina 11-16 F2.8
Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F4

My wife has a Panasonic GF 3 with 20mm F1.7 that is very handy in the evenings. If she doesn't take that, I would swap the Tokina for the Canon 50 F1.4

 

[Dylan777]

1. 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2. 24-70 mrk II
3. CRs 14-24 f2.8

 

[michi]

For crop I would take:

10-22
15-85
70-200 L IS

For full frame:

16-35 L
24-70 2.8 L
70-200 L IS

 

[Phenix205]

Obviously, most people can have way more than 3 lenses. Sometimes buying new lenses is to rekindle the passion or renew the hobby, not because you need them. So if the question is what 3 lenses to take, I'd pick my old friend 28-70, my new buddy 70-200 IS II, and my next lens 24II. ... and the pancake.

 

[Joes Dad]

Including those that exist but not yet generally available:

24-70 f/2.8L II (This is the hard one - would have difficulty not choosing the 24 f/1.4L instead)
70-200 f/2.8L II
200-400 f/4.0L

Thankfully, not my problem though.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I have several lenses but if I chose only 3:

24-105 4
70-200 2.8
35 1.4

 

[funkboy]

Weeelll, while we're at speculating, if we're talking about a theoretical setup here, I'd generalize & say:

- a wide-angle zoom with a constant aperture of at least f/4, preferably f/2.8 (Tokina & Canon both have existing real-world options, though Tokina rules the crop crop).

- a theoretical stabilized fast prime somewhere around the "wide to normal" range e.g. somewhere between 30 & 60mm on FF and 20 & 40mm on 1.6x. I also think that a 22-45mm f/2 zoom lens would be an excellent replacement for a sack full of wide/standard primes if done right.

- a stabilized fast telephoto zoom like the the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 IS Ls.

- a teleconverter and a 12mm macro ring

In the future, I think "what if" threads like this would be more useful if they were a bit more targeted e.g. "What if you could only have 3 lenses to shoot a wedding" or "pick 3 lenses for a landscape kit" etc.

 

[mortadella]

This, to me, is like asking an auto mechanic which three wrenches he would choose if he could only have three. He'd end up with three adjustable wrenches and screw up or miss a lot of jobs.

I guess I just don't like thinking in terms of limitations if I don't have to.

Well, as a cyclist I can tell you that I don't tow my toolbox behind me, but there are a few essentials that I stick in my saddle pack or jersey pocket. Likewise in "terms of limitations" most people have a limited budget, and often limited space or inclination to carry around a dozen leses. So I find it to be a perfectly reasonable question.

My $.02:
70-200 2.8 IS
A wide zoom of choice depending on shooting style/subjects
A fast prime in focal length of choice

+1: The 70-200 2.8 mk.ii is about 140 primes in one... most excellent choice!

Technically speaking it would be 131 primes but who's counting...totally agree though!

to pretty much be able to get 90% of possible subjects you would need the most range, so for range I think you would almost have to go:

24-70 II
70-200 2.8 IS II
200-400 1.4x

No gaps no overlaps!!

These below would take care of about 8% of the remaining 10, but we only get 3...booo!!!

17 TSE
100 2.8L macro
600

 

[ablearcher]

My choice would be:

35L
70-200 2.8L IS II
135L

I would miss an ultra wide angle but if I had to make a choice this would be it.

 

[Viggo]

24 f1,4 L II
35 f1,4 L (II)
50 f1,2 L

 

[dafrank]

Simple:
24-70 f/2.8L V2
70-200 f2.8L V2
17mm f/4.0L TSE

And, if I could cheat a little, throw in a 1.4X v3 teleconverter, technically not a photo lens itself.

This would cover 95% of whatever I have needed to shoot. Of course, adding back my 16-35L v2, 85 f1.2 v2, 90mm TSE, 24 TSE V2, and maybe a 300 f/4.0 or 400 mm f/5.6 L would certainly round things out a lot better, filling in some gaps better than using my feet to do something similar.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Easy - 24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 70-200 f4 is

 

[Aglet]

compact and light

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS (Have it)
Nikkor 105mm f/f.5 AIS (Have it)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (have it)

with a couple $10 adapters, the first 2 work just fine all manual on all my Canon bodies too.
I'd have chosen the Nikkor 50/1.4 but the Canon's a little sharper on FF.

 

[fegari]

For FF, I'm a happy camper with


Zeiss 21/2.8
Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar
Canon 70-200L F4 IS (+ 1.4x Extender when needed)

With this setup I now hardly use the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar which was my most used lens until the last two arrived.

 

[J]

APS:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (yes, really)

35mm:
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus (yes, really)

 

[CharlieB]

Fellow Photogs,

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

Sorry, non Canon. I take a Zeiss Biogon 38mm/4.5 T* as found on the SWC/M Hasselblad. Then the 35/2.0 Summicron Asph. and 90mm/2.0 Summicron Apo Asph. from Leica, on any Leica film or M9 camera.

I've got a photograph in my family room, 48x48 inches, taken with my old SWC/M that you can get a foot away from and marvel at the detail. Just an amazing lens. And yah, that print, framed cost me about $400 nearly 15 years ago.

 

[photogaz]

35L
24-70
70-200 f2.8 II

 

[jmanley]

I've seen it already but my kit would be:

24-70 2.8 II
85 1.2 II
70-200 2.8 IS II

I'm a wedding and portrait guy though...if i had more time for landscapes my answer would be different.