Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rweakins, Jun 14, 2007.
out of all lenses what would be the top three every photographer needs?
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 just in reply to that what would say say is the top lens for a landscape/nature photographer, top for portraits, and top for sports?
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.
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.
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.
Sorry- I was talking about 35mm... or FF, if you want.
Here's a link to that thread.
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.