If you could only buy 3 lenses . . .

[walangij]

If you're going the canon way and love primes there's the supposed "Holy Trinity" that many pros use:

35 f1.4L
85 f/1.2L
135 f/2.0 L

Of course these altogether hold a large price tag and do best on a FF or 1.3 sensor b/c with a 1.6 the range is not quite filled. That being said, just picking these all up and starting DSLR with them is terribly difficult b/c the learning curve is quite high as is the price tag.

also the "Holy Trinity" of pro zooms are:

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

which is also a very expensive set, but for the common user what others have already posted are quite inexpensive in comparison and do the job well too.

 

[compuwar]

Uh... you really trying to sneak that $5000 lens in there?

Some people like small, cheap, slow zooms

 

[wmmk]

I would put in the Canon photojournalist holy trinity, but that's not realistic.

17-40 f/4L(Which I'll buy by autumn)
28-70 f/2.8L(Which comes after my next big webdesign job)
70-200 f/4L(Which I already own)

 

[Grimace]

I would put in the Canon photojournalist holy trinity, but that's not realistic.

17-40 f/4L(Which I'll buy by autumn)
28-70 f/2.8L(Which comes after my next big webdesign job)
70-200 f/4L(Which I already own)

do you mean the 24-70? If so, you will LOVE it.

 

[Kamera RAWr]

Perhaps if you wanted more artistic options (Nikon), you could perhaps consider..

10.5mm DX Fisheye lens
18-200mm VR
105mm Macro

Just another combo to consider

 

[wmmk]

do you mean the 24-70? If so, you will LOVE it.

No, I actually mean the 28-70. I can get it used for $780, which is considerably less than the 24-70. If I wasn't picking up a 17-40 as well, I'd go with the newer model, but shooting at f/4 from 24-27mm doesn't really bother me. The 24-70 is also a bit sharper, but has sort of a flare problem which the older 28-70 is immune to. In the end, I get reasonably priced L glass, and all well.

 

[Grimace]

No, I actually mean the 28-70. I can get it used for $780, which is considerably less than the 24-70. If I wasn't picking up a 17-40 as well, I'd go with the newer model, but shooting at f/4 from 24-27mm doesn't really bother me. The 24-70 is also a bit sharper, but has sort of a flare problem which the older 28-70 is immune to. In the end, I get reasonably priced L glass, and all well.

You can get a used 24-70 in that price range too. I really would look more closely at the 24-70 -- it is sharper and hasn't flared very much at all in my use on a full-frame body. On a crop-sensor, you would also be "immune" from it.

 

[Abstract]

Well, seeing as I didn't see whether you plan on buying a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc... I'll just say from a Nikon perspective

Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX.. good for wide angle shots
Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5 DX or 17-55mm f/2.8 DX (if you have the money)
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR DX or 70-200mm VR f/2.8 (also, if you have the mone)

Hope that helps

Edit: I am biased as I own a few of those

I agree, although I rarely need to zoom very far. This list is pretty good for the typical person, and is a list I would recommend for someone who doesn't know what he wants.


As for myself, I think (edited):

Nikon 12-24 mm f/4
Sigma 30 mm f/1.4
Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8


Or possibly this list:

Nikon 18-200 mm VR
Sigma 30 mm f/1.4
Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 VR macro

I don't need the 105 mm macro, but I just like having a lens that can do macro. Besides, I may as well get 3 lenses if that's my limit.

 

[Abstract]

Uh... you really trying to sneak that $5000 lens in there?

Why not just sneak the Sigma 200-500 mm f/2.8 in there as well.

 

[Westside guy]

Why not just sneak the Sigma 200-500 mm f/2.8 in there as well.

Heck, you could remove the front element of that beast and store every lens that's been mentioned on this thread inside...

 

[robbieduncan]

I'm assuming you meant 70-200 (link is correct)

I own these and LOVE them!

Oops, yes. I'll update the post!

 

[bertpalmer]

My picks would be (based on a balance of cost/quality)

Sigma 105mm Macro
Sigma 10/20mm Wideangle
Sigma 17/70mm Zoom

If I didn't like Macro/Portrait photogrpahy I would maybe choose a 70/300mm instead of the 105mm.

 

[Martin C]

Uh... you really trying to sneak that $5000 lens in there?

Haha, yes. Just for the hell of it.

 

[dakis]

Typical I know, but I've done a good amount of searching and can't find what I need really, so here's my question.

I'll be purchasing a DSLR soon, and some lenses to go with it as well, and I need suggestions on the lenses, so if you could ONLY BUY 3 lenses for your camera, what would they be?

NickD

- Tokina 12-24mm or Nikon 12-24mm (same optical quality, big price difference
- Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Nikon 28-75mm 2.8 (same as above)
- Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR - expensive, but there's simply nothing better

 

[§HAMU§]

i'd pick these 3 lenses (if money were no object) for my rebel xt:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (already own)
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

as it is, i love the primes i have (28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8) so my lens purchasing roadmap is as follows: upgrade to ef 50mm f/1.4, ef 85mm f/1.8, ts-e 24mm f/3.5L

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

- Tokina 12-24mm or Nikon 12-24mm (same optical quality, big price difference
- Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Nikon 28-75mm 2.8 (same as above)
- Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR - expensive, but there's simply nothing better

I've used a Tokina 12-24 on a D100 before, and I was envious... Good quality shots and build seemed nice too.

 

[compuwar]

Typical I know, but I've done a good amount of searching and can't find what I need really, so here's my question.

I'll be purchasing a DSLR soon, and some lenses to go with it as well, and I need suggestions on the lenses, so if you could ONLY BUY 3 lenses for your camera, what would they be?

NickD

What I got probably isn't going to help you, since you probably shoot different things than I do and under different conditions. Your budget is probably different too. This thread would probably be significantly more helpful to you if you'd tell us what sorts of things you plan to shoot, under what conditions, and give us an idea of your budget.

 

[Abstract]

- Tokina 12-24mm or Nikon 12-24mm (same optical quality, big price difference
- Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 or Nikon 28-75mm 2.8 (same as above)
- Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR - expensive, but there's simply nothing better

Actually, that's similar to 3 of my lenses.

Come to think of it, if I had a realistic budget and were to start over, I would probably get 3 lenses I currently own today: Tokina 12-24 mm, Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, and a probably my Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 for macro and for "some" distance.

 

[sedgarm]

i have a 5D, so my list is referring to a full frame sensor.

my 3 lens kit would be depend on what i intended to be shooting.... but to put down 3 lenses,

Id have to say

canon 35 1.4L
canon 85 1.2L
canon 70-200 2.8L IS

I own the 70-200 and plan to grab the primes at some point in the future.

I'm a wedding photographer, and these 3 lenses would meet most of my needs... but i may consider the 24 1.4L over the 35.

 

[dakis]

I've used a Tokina 12-24 on a D100 before, and I was envious... Good quality shots and build seemed nice too.

I used to have a Tokina 12-24mm for my Canon 20D before I switched to Nikon - I loved that lens!
For my D200, I first bought a Tamron 28-75mm which I really like. It looks cheaper than the Nikon 28-75mm but is acutally pretty well built. I've carried it around half of the globe a couple of times and it still holds up very well. Optically, it's definitely as good as the Nikon and costs only 1/3.
I then went for the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR. A real shocker in terms of price - wasn't easy to convince my wife on that one But man it delivers!

Anyway, back to the 12-24mm: I've been saving up for a Nikon 12-24mm but I still have serious doubts the latter is worth the 950$. The Tokina costs half as much - and with this one, the build quality is at least en par with Nikon's version. Optically, they both perform equally well.

 

[miloblithe]

Obviously has to do with my interests (pictures of my new baby are roughly 90% of what I take these days), but I don't think I really need anything wider than 24mm on a 1.6x camera. I have a Tokina 19-35, but now that I have a 24-70 f/2.8, I don't know how often I'd use it.

 

[jayb2000]

This is a cool site http://www.dcviews.com/lenses/Nikon-comp-lenses.htm

I used the Nikon link, but it is there for Canon, Pentax and more.

As for lenses, unless you know you are doing specialized sports or long range wildlife stuff, I think the three lenses that will be the most useful are:
A good super wide zoom
Sharp mid-range zoom
Fast wide - for parties and other indoor shots.

Something like:
12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom Nikkor
28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor (although the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM or the 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor is about 1/4 the price)

I have the 18-200 and really like it. I bought the 50mm 1.8 a few months ago, and while I love the speed, I find with the multiplier it is too narrow for shooting at parties and such.

 

[Clix Pix]

28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor (although the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM or the 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor is about 1/4 the price).

Actually, the 28mm f/1/4 is discontinued, and the price is now pretty steep if one buys a gently used one (hard to find, too!). Many people are reaching for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 instead.

 

[jayb2000]

Actually, the 28mm f/1/4 is discontinued, and the price is now pretty steep if one buys a gently used one (hard to find, too!). Many people are reaching for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 instead.

I know, but it was a hypothetical question to start with!
Having seen all the answers I wonder if the 18-200 would cover the wide end enough. Its faster than the 12-24 and only 6mm difference.

Maybe stick with:
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom Nikkor
28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor (although the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM or the 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor is about 1/4 the price)

But add the
200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor

I like shooting big or far, not so much with the macro.

So those would probably do it for me.

 

[failsafe1]

Depending on your conversion factor: 1.6. 1.5. 1.3 or 1x I would say as follows.

Canon (1.3 or 1x) 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 all 2.8

Nikon (1.5) 10.5, 17-55, and 70-200 2.8