spectacular lens line up

No one set of equipment is best for everyone.

It depends what you want to shoot. No one set of equipment is best for all purposes.

Andrew

rweakins said:

obviously. but lets say for general sake we say #1 macro #2 portrait #3 landscape #4 general #5 wildcard. how's that for general purposes

Click to expand...

I'm pretty close to mine.

Macro - 60mm f/2.8 vr (Don't have, I have the 55mm f/3.5)
Portrait - Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 (Don't have, have no "portrait" lens)
Landscape - Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (Don't have, have the 12-24mm f/4)
General - Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (Don't have, have the 28-70mm f/2.8)
Wildcard - Nikon 10.5mm fisheye

You... forgot telephoto? The sportogs and birdos will be sad.

rweakins said:

obviously. but lets say for general sake we say #1 macro #2 portrait #3 landscape #4 general #5 wildcard. how's that for general purposes

Click to expand...

Well I shoot Nikon and mostly sports, but here we go.

#1 60mm f2.8 (don't have but if shot macro would)
#2 85 f1.4 (don't have waiting on an AF-S model)
#3 24-70 f2.8 (have the 28-70)
#4 70-200 f2.8 (have)
#5 300mm f2.8 (have - great sports lens)

It's ridiculous to limit people to 5 types of lenses. A macro lens is useless to someone who doesn't shoot macro at all.

Anyway, despite being a Nikon user and not Canon......


1. Have: Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8
Want: Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8

2. Have: Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 VR macro
Want: Nothing. I have what I want.

3. Have: Sigma 30 mm f/1.4
Want: Nothing. The Sigma is perfect on my D300. However, it's good to get a FF version to prepare for the inevitable, in which case, I guess even a new 50 mm f/1.4 would do the trick (but not as well as my Sigma 30 mm, which I'm in love with).

4. Have: Tokina 12-24 mm f/4
Want: Nikon 14-24 mm f/2.8 (Not because it's better, but because it's full frame. Better preparation for the future, and less of the distorted areas of the lens)

5. Have: Nothing comparable.
Want: Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8. I'd settle for a new version of the AF-S Nikon 135 mm f/2.

Five lenses, eh? Okay...

#1. 24-70 f2.8
#2. 70-200 f2.8 (IS or non-IS)
#3. 50 f1.4 (50 f2.8 Macro if you're more into macros)
#4. 400 f2.8 (600 f4 if you're more into sports)
#5. 16-35 f2.8

and for those more money than they know what to do with, replace #3, #4 or #5 with the 200 f1.8 or 1200 f5.6

Here's my line up:
#1. 24-105 f4 IS
#2. 70-200 f2.8 IS
#3. 50 f1.8 (yeah, gonna be replaced)
#4. the "Bigma" (Sigma 50-500)
#5. Sigma 12-24

14 f/2.8
35 f/1.4
85 f/1.2
300 f/2.8
800 f/5.6

85L 1.2
135L 2.0
300L/IS 2.8

These are the three that I've fallen in love with. I own lots of other glass, but only these three I would call spectacular. I haven't used the 35L, but that is on the short list. I don't shoot Macro - portraits and sports.

rweakins said:

just curious to see what canon photographers would list as their top 3-5 lenses for a spectacular line up

Click to expand...

What lenses you want varies by what you shoot.

For me, the ultimate line up, assuming I have a FF body, would be:

16-35/2.8L
50/1.2L
85/1.2L
70-200/2.8L IS
400/2.8L

MAYBE, add in the 135/2.0L

That would be a sweet setup. On the other hand, my current set up is:

17-40/4.0L
50/1.8 mkII
70-200/4.0L

on a 10D. The 70-200 is a wicked lens; absolutely the best IQ I can hope for. The 17-40 is a close second, but lacks a little bit of the punch that the 70-200 has. The 50/1.8 is a place holder until I can get the 50/1.4 and a FF body.

Currently being a Pentaxian, I'd list my lenses as following

Macro: 100 mm 2.8 (don't own (yet))
Portrait: FA* 85 mm f/1.8 or for a zoom the DA* 50-135 f/2.8, I own the 50 mm f/1.4 and it's pretty darn good. I'd also take an FA 77 f/1.8 limited just as well as the other two.
Landscape: Pentax DA 14-24 f/4
General: Pentax 77 f/1.8 limited
Wildcard: Pentax 10-17 fisheye zoom

SLC

From a Canon 20D user...

Macro - just grab the P&S camera instead!

Portrait - ??? (not really a subject of much interest)

Landscape - EF 17-40L f/4.0 but on a Canon 5Dmk2 body.
Currently I have a Tokina 19-35mm, which at 35-55mm equivalent isn't wide enough.

General - EF 70-200L IS f/2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter handy too...

Wildcard - EF 400mm DO IS f/4.0,
although an EF 100-400L IS f/4.5-5.6 USM might not be too bad either, if it could be used on a crop body with a 1.4x teleconverter and still autofocus at f/8...


-hh

Crop Body Setup
Wide-angle: Tokina 2.8/11-16 or 4/12-24
Bread-and-butter: Nikon 2.8/17-55 (if I'm rich) or Tokina 2.8/16-50
Portraits: Nikon 1.4/50 (I'd like to get the Zeiss, but it doesn't AF)
Tele zoom: Tokina 2.8/50-135

FF Body Setup (i. e. suppose I am independently wealthy)
Wide-angle: Nikon 2.8/14-24
Bread-and-butter: Nikon 2.8/24-70
Portraits: Nikon 1.4/85 aka the cream machine (again, I'd like to get the Zeiss, but it doesn't AF)
Tele zoom: Nikon 2.8/70-200 (although technically, I could keep my 80-200, hehe)
Wild Card: 2/105 DC Nikkor

Real-life setup
Wide-angle lens: Tokina 4/12-24
Bread-and-butter: Tokina 2.8/16-50 (and get rid of the 18-70 kit lens)
Portraits: Nikon 1.8/50 (made in Japan) check
Tele zoom: Nikon 2.8/80-200 zoom check (although I might exchange it for a Tokina 2.8/50-135 one day)
That's it! I don't think I need more stuff in my bag