Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
top three lenses a photographer needs
- Thread starter rweakins
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No such thing. Every photographer doesn't shoot the same things at the same distances. The needs of a sports shooter are different than the needs of a wildlife photographer are different than the needs of a photojournalist are different than the needs of a portrait photographer....
Well all depends.
Lots of variables, I would say as a general 3 lens kit for an advanced amateur would be a 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and a 50mm or 85mm prime lens. Maybe a wide angle like a 10-20mm, for landscape people.
As for myself with sports I have a 28-75mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR and in transit a 300mm f2.8.
Lots of variables, I would say as a general 3 lens kit for an advanced amateur would be a 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and a 50mm or 85mm prime lens. Maybe a wide angle like a 10-20mm, for landscape people.
As for myself with sports I have a 28-75mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR and in transit a 300mm f2.8.
There's already another thread regarding "if you could only buy 3 lenses" which is pretty much the same thing you're already asking.
The problem with your question is that there are a myriad of theories as to what "top lenses" constitute. There is the camp of photographers who believe that primes are the only true lenses, and that zooms are really a cute little compromise. Then there are the zoom people, who feel that technology has advanced enough not to have to rely on primes alone, and that a good zoom is as good as a prime.
For landscape, on a Canon mount (which is what I know), I'd go with a 16-35 f/2.8 II, a 24mmL, and a 35mm L.
For walk-around and general photography, I'd go with a 24-70 f/2.8, a 70-200 f/2.8, and a 50mm f/1.4.
For portraits, I'd go with an 85 f/1.2, a 135 f/2, and a 200 f/2.8.
Nature and Wildlife, you'd want the 300 f/2.8, the 400 f/2.8, and some Bigma zoom.
That is of course just my opinion, and many here will disagree.
For landscape, on a Canon mount (which is what I know), I'd go with a 16-35 f/2.8 II, a 24mmL, and a 35mm L.
For walk-around and general photography, I'd go with a 24-70 f/2.8, a 70-200 f/2.8, and a 50mm f/1.4.
For portraits, I'd go with an 85 f/1.2, a 135 f/2, and a 200 f/2.8.
Nature and Wildlife, you'd want the 300 f/2.8, the 400 f/2.8, and some Bigma zoom.
That is of course just my opinion, and many here will disagree.
Agreed...64+ posts in another thread...
forum searches for photography usually yield great results.
Yeah, as others said, there's already a thread on this. Also, are we talking about full frame, APS-H, or APS-C size sensors? A 24-70 on a 5D is the similar as the 17-55 on a 30D.
Yeah, that's what I assumed. I guess I should specify 35mm, because I could be talking about full frame medium or large format. Do you own the 24-70? I'm seriously looking at it and would love to hear some first hand reviews.
The 24-70 is seriously one of the better lenses I have used in the 10+ years I have been into photography. Yes, probably my 70-200 is slightly sharper, but when I shoot with the 24-70 at 50mm, it actually outperforms my 50mm 1.4. Yes-it's heavy. And with the lens hood, it looks like a telephoto. To me that's a small price to pay for the optical quality of the lens. As the cliche goes, it practically lives on my 5D.
One of the other lenses I was considering for a while was the 24-105- slightly lighter, IS, longer focal length. That still didn't make it a fast zoom, and the difference is noticeable when looking through the viewfinder.
Here is a sample of an image I took with it when I first got it, and a 100% crop. This is at f/5.6. It gets sharper at f/8. I haven't done any sharpening, just the sepia filter. I'd say if you can swing it- go for it.
It will really depend on what you shoot... And on your SLR system of choice too - because different manufacturers have slightly different lens repertoires.
I am not very familiar with what Canon/Nikon currently offer, but if you decide to buy into an Olympus kit, the lens choice is a no-brainer.
I use the 14-54 2.8-3.5, 50-200 2.8-3.5, and the 50 2.0 macro Digital Zuikos on my Oly E1. It has a 2x focal length multiplier, so, as you can see, these lenses provide enough coverage for pretty much any shot - from a reasonably wide 28mm to 400mm.
I am not very familiar with what Canon/Nikon currently offer, but if you decide to buy into an Olympus kit, the lens choice is a no-brainer.
I use the 14-54 2.8-3.5, 50-200 2.8-3.5, and the 50 2.0 macro Digital Zuikos on my Oly E1. It has a 2x focal length multiplier, so, as you can see, these lenses provide enough coverage for pretty much any shot - from a reasonably wide 28mm to 400mm.