If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
- Thread starter canon23
- Start date
- Status
M
MarkIII
Guest
ecka said:MarkIII said:
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.
Upvote
0
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
;D
* 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
;D
Upvote
0
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
Jim
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
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.)
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.)
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 42026
Guest
Canon ef-s 10-22mm (because Im using a 7D) - Love that lens.
Zeiss 35mm f2
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L is ii usm
Kind of covers all bases pretty perfectly for me. Personally I don't really 'need' much more than that. In fact I could save $1000 and get the non is 70-200 f2.8 and put the extra towards some elinchrom ranger quadra's.
If I was using full frame it would change to a 16-35mm and a 50mm L (I think).
Zeiss 35mm f2
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L is ii usm
Kind of covers all bases pretty perfectly for me. Personally I don't really 'need' much more than that. In fact I could save $1000 and get the non is 70-200 f2.8 and put the extra towards some elinchrom ranger quadra's.
If I was using full frame it would change to a 16-35mm and a 50mm L (I think).
Upvote
0
Since we are allowed to include imaginary lenses...
14-24mm f/2.8 TS-E (w/ AF)
50mm f/1.2 L II
85-135mm f/2 IS Macro
14-24mm f/2.8 TS-E (w/ AF)
50mm f/1.2 L II
85-135mm f/2 IS Macro
Upvote
0
Ha..just realized this question seems unreasonable and merely hypothetical. "If" is implied but not correct (at least in this man's myopic ways). Then I noticed my signature and its contents then got brought back to reality...thank goodness..simply a bad day dream (worked hard to get to get to this point!)
Upvote
0
- Status
