If you could only have three lenses...

[stolpe]

1. 16-35 f2.8 II
2. 24-70 f2.8 II
3. 70-200 f2.8 IS II

I need to replace my 24-105 f4 soon...
and get the wide anlge zoom in the future. Let's hope they release the EF 14-24 f2.8 until then.

/ Stolpe

 

[whothafunk]

1 - 8-15mm fisheye
2 - 24-70 f2.8 ii
3 - 300mm f2.8 ii

 

[paul13walnut5]

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 DC Macro
Canon 70-200 F2.8L

Oh, look at that! ⬇

 

[Bruno97]

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II

 

[runninghead]

My perfect combo would be:

16-35mm f/2.8L II
85mm f/1.2L II
300mm f/2.8L II

 

[eyeland]

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

 

[Zv]

That's a tough one. Maybe 17mm TSE, 24-70L II and 135L. Already have one of those! Yay!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

 

[caMARYnon]

24-105 + 100macro (L or not) + 70-200 IS (f2.8 II best or f4 excellent)

 

[TommyLee]

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

 

[Dylan777]

I use to think:
1. 16-35 f2.8 II
2. 24-70 f2.8 II
3. 70-200 f2.8 IS II

I'm more of a prime guy but when I had to go with three this would be the clear decision.

Yes, indeed. Those are great choices for travel on FF.

Recently I'm craving for primes. Slowly, I added 50L & 135L to my kit - so far, I'm in love with the BOKEHHHHH.

 

[Click]

My choice:

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Yip, I'd have to go with these 3 if I was forced to choose only 3. (I'm assuming the 16-35 is also the mk II)

Yes mk II, I forgot to write the "II" sorry.

 

[Don Haines]

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.....

 

[Zv]

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!

 

[TheAshleyJones]

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)

 

[yablonsky]

24-70 f/2.8L II
70-200 f/4L IS
300 f/4L IS

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2,8 II, 35/1,4L.

 

[cellomaster27]

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.

 

[Random Orbits]

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...