If you could only have three lenses...
- Thread starter bleephotography
- Start date
- Status
Being on a very tight budget, right now I am very happy with my 24-105 + 50mm 1.4 and I do feel that once I get my 70-200 2.8 IS, I will be set for a while.
From there I'll change the 24-105 to a 24-70 2.8 IS/VC and after that, possibly change the 50mm 1.4 to get IS or better AF performance.
Alternatively, I'd buy a car and always bring as many lenses as my bank would allow me to accumulate
From there I'll change the 24-105 to a 24-70 2.8 IS/VC and after that, possibly change the 50mm 1.4 to get IS or better AF performance.
Alternatively, I'd buy a car and always bring as many lenses as my bank would allow me to accumulate
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Everyone's needs are different.
The more versatile the lens, the less good a specific tasks...and vice-versa.
For me, I'd preoably go for uber versatile (master of none) 28-300L, a 35mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.2L. The latter two I just couldn't be without. If I could have 4 lenses....it would be a tough weigh up between a 100L macro or a 16-35IIL. If it was just wedding work which I was limiting to three lenses then for me that's easy, 16-35IIL / 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2L combo. Works for me
If it was landscapes, 16-35IIL, 24-70IIL and 75-300L.
Wildlife, 16-35IIL, 70-200IIL, 400mm f2.8 LIS, plus extenders.
The more versatile the lens, the less good a specific tasks...and vice-versa.
For me, I'd preoably go for uber versatile (master of none) 28-300L, a 35mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.2L. The latter two I just couldn't be without. If I could have 4 lenses....it would be a tough weigh up between a 100L macro or a 16-35IIL. If it was just wedding work which I was limiting to three lenses then for me that's easy, 16-35IIL / 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2L combo. Works for me
If it was landscapes, 16-35IIL, 24-70IIL and 75-300L.
Wildlife, 16-35IIL, 70-200IIL, 400mm f2.8 LIS, plus extenders.
Upvote
0
this is awful...
//////////////
I am about to face the reality though
14L II, 35 sigma and then EITHER 135 f2 (w.1.4x and tubes) or 100L macro.
I would miss macro or closeup ability... and I would long for f2 aperture...
but I bet I choose the 100L macro...just too 'able' a lens...
14L, 35 f1.4 sigma and 100L macro..
that will leave a LOT of lenses packed away....WOW
if only ONE lens ....or a forth lens.....I would add my 24-105 ....so versatile
if only TWO lenses......14L and 24-105
long is not quite as important to me as ...fast aperture ....and ultra wide
//////////////
I am about to face the reality though
14L II, 35 sigma and then EITHER 135 f2 (w.1.4x and tubes) or 100L macro.
I would miss macro or closeup ability... and I would long for f2 aperture...
but I bet I choose the 100L macro...just too 'able' a lens...
14L, 35 f1.4 sigma and 100L macro..
that will leave a LOT of lenses packed away....WOW
if only ONE lens ....or a forth lens.....I would add my 24-105 ....so versatile
if only TWO lenses......14L and 24-105
long is not quite as important to me as ...fast aperture ....and ultra wide
Upvote
0
I'd keep a 17-55, a 70-200, and a 100L. I'd give three lenses to Fluffy the cat and three lenses to Lucky the cat, and trade lenses with them as needed.....
Upvote
0
What camera do we get with our imaginary three lenses? Can we have three bodies too?
1DX + 135L or 70-200 II (speed)
5D3 + 24-70 II (everything)
6D + Sigma 35 1.4 (low light)
I bet someone here owns that exact kit!
1DX + 135L or 70-200 II (speed)
5D3 + 24-70 II (everything)
6D + Sigma 35 1.4 (low light)
I bet someone here owns that exact kit!
Upvote
0
It's a bit brutal having to choose three lenses that cover video and photography. I think, for example, that the 24-105 is a great lens for video but pretty horrible for stills. My main lens for stills is the 85 F/1.2 II but it's really not much use to me for video. I really like having IS for video.
Video me would go for:
16-35 F/2.8L II
24-105 F/4L IS
70-200 F/2.8L IS II
Stills me would go for
35 F/1.4L
85 F/1.2L II
200 F/2.0L IS (I haven't got this one but still have two near-mint kidneys if anyone is up for a swap)
Video me would go for:
16-35 F/2.8L II
24-105 F/4L IS
70-200 F/2.8L IS II
Stills me would go for
35 F/1.4L
85 F/1.2L II
200 F/2.0L IS (I haven't got this one but still have two near-mint kidneys if anyone is up for a swap)
Upvote
0
Out of my current kit, I would take the:
Tamron 24-70 VC
Canon 70-300L
Canon 135L
Between an extension tube or two and an extender, you could pretty much do everything.
I haven't yet extensively used the 70-200II, so that might replace the 70-300L.
If I could only have one lens out of my kit, it would actually be the Tamron (the only non-Canon modern lens I own). It does everything competently enough (from landscapes to portraits to narrow depth of field art shots to video) to get by with. Nothing else I own matches its versatility.
Tamron 24-70 VC
Canon 70-300L
Canon 135L
Between an extension tube or two and an extender, you could pretty much do everything.
I haven't yet extensively used the 70-200II, so that might replace the 70-300L.
If I could only have one lens out of my kit, it would actually be the Tamron (the only non-Canon modern lens I own). It does everything competently enough (from landscapes to portraits to narrow depth of field art shots to video) to get by with. Nothing else I own matches its versatility.
Upvote
0
If I could...
8-15mm f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 85mm f/1.2 L
more into reality...
10-22mm f3.5-4.5, 24-105mm f/4 L, 28mm f/1.8
what I got... let's not talk about it.
8-15mm f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 85mm f/1.2 L
more into reality...
10-22mm f3.5-4.5, 24-105mm f/4 L, 28mm f/1.8
what I got... let's not talk about it.
Upvote
0
If I didn't have to pay for it, I'd take three 1200s and retire a lot sooner! ;D
I used to carry the 16-35 II/50L/70-200L II combo. The 16-35 II was the least favorite/used out of the three, but it's range is versatile. The three lenses covered a wide range of photographic situations, but after trying the 24-70 II, that trio will have to be broken up to include the 24-70 II. The 70-200 II stays, so the question is what is the third lens -- fast prime or ultrawide (i.e. TS-E 17). I tend to use fast primes more, so now I would pick the 24-70 II, 85 II and 70-200 II.
If Canon made a 50L II that rivaled the 24-70 II, then I'd opt for that over the 85 II. I tend to use the 50mm focal length a lot more...
I used to carry the 16-35 II/50L/70-200L II combo. The 16-35 II was the least favorite/used out of the three, but it's range is versatile. The three lenses covered a wide range of photographic situations, but after trying the 24-70 II, that trio will have to be broken up to include the 24-70 II. The 70-200 II stays, so the question is what is the third lens -- fast prime or ultrawide (i.e. TS-E 17). I tend to use fast primes more, so now I would pick the 24-70 II, 85 II and 70-200 II.
If Canon made a 50L II that rivaled the 24-70 II, then I'd opt for that over the 85 II. I tend to use the 50mm focal length a lot more...
Upvote
0
- Status
