# If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???



## canon23 (Aug 14, 2012)

Fellow Photogs,

Just for the "what if", so if you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they be...& if you want, why?


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2012)

17TS-E, 24TS-E L II, 70-200 2.8L IS II

Or 24TS-E L II, 35mm L, 70-200 2.8L IS II

The reason is I enjoy landscapes most. At the same time the 70-200 is suitable for portraits too...

But, believe it or not it was a really tough question!

It is difficult to exclude lenses and sometimes you have to travel light...

P.S Actually if I was interested only in landscapes in a specific trip I might get 70-200 f/4L IS instead of the 2.8 and save on weight even more!


----------



## c3hammer (Aug 14, 2012)

For a crop cam:
Tokina 11-16
Canon 70-200
Canon 600mm

Full frame:
24 L II
70-200 L II
600

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 14, 2012)

A big one
A medium one
A small one


----------



## pz-photography (Aug 14, 2012)

85 1.2 II (clearly my most used lens on the 5D III), 70-200 IS II and the new 24-70 2.8 II (if it is as sharp as they say  ) with the 24-70 and 70-200 you have a wide and versatile range and the 85 1.2 is the lens for the "dreamy shots"


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 14, 2012)

If I could only have 3 lenses, this is pretty easy. 24-70L II, 70-200L II IS, 100-400L. That covers everything I need to shoot.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Aug 14, 2012)

600mm f4 II

70-200mm f2.8 II

24-70mm f2.8 II


----------



## Tiedtke (Aug 14, 2012)

I'd go with a wide angle, normal and tele i.e. 16-35mm L II, 24-70mm L II and 70-200mm L IS II.


----------



## canon816 (Aug 14, 2012)

600 F4
300 2.8
17-40

These are the lenses I most often use and could not live without!


----------



## squarebox (Aug 14, 2012)

i'd go 16-35L, 24-70mk2, 200-400L (the one at the olympics with the 1.4x teleconverter)


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 14, 2012)

Not soo easy. My first thought was 10-22 EF-S, 35mm f2, and 70-200 f4 IS.

I'm not sure about the 10-22 though, I might replace that with a 15-85 EF-S. This would mean that the prime lens would no longer need to be in the middle of 22mm and 70mm where the hole was in the first lineup. And here comes the problem, there is no prime that really suits me. I would like to see a 30mm f1.4 or f1.8, that is sharp wide open, with a small minimum focusing distance (this leaves the Sigma 30mm out). The Canon 28 f1.8 comes a little short on image quality (I'm hoping for a new version of that lens, seeing what Canon was able to do with the 40mm f2.8).


----------



## kidnaper (Aug 14, 2012)

Easy... 
The much desired and wished for 14-24 f/2.8
50 f/1.2
70-200 f/2.8 IS II


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 14, 2012)

Forget the esoterics and the special application lenses, common sense approach for me here...

Assuming my current body (APS-C)

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

Well, just fancy that!!!!


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 14, 2012)

Wow a lot of people are shooting with lenses that don't even exist!


----------



## Canon6D (Aug 14, 2012)

Exactly the three lenses I already own:

- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (+ Kenko MC4 1,4x DGX)
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 14, 2012)

Crop:
10-22mm | 15-85mm | 70-200mm f/4L IS (or maybe 70-300L)

FF:
17mm TS-E | 24-105mm | 70-300L (or a future 100-400mm replacement)


----------



## charlesa (Aug 14, 2012)

24 mm TS-E II L
70-200 mm f/2.8 II IS L
400 mm f/2.8 L IS I


----------



## FLOYD (Aug 14, 2012)

For the FF:

24-70 2.8
70-200 f2.8 or f4 (IS)
85 f1.2 or f1.8


----------



## kennykodak (Aug 14, 2012)

14
24-70
70-200


----------



## pwalderh (Aug 14, 2012)

24-70mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2,8 IS
300mm f/2,8 II IS


----------



## MiceBass (Aug 14, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Wow a lot of people are shooting with lenses that don't even exist!



Who are you to tell me I can't have my 8-1200 f1.2 L IS IV?


----------



## docsavage123 (Aug 14, 2012)

I would have now is these 3:
24-70 F 2.8
70-200 F4 L
400 F5.6 L

What I really want is:
500 F4 L
70-200 F2.8L
16-35 L Mark II


----------



## MK5GTI (Aug 14, 2012)

35mm
85mm
135mm or 70-200


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 14, 2012)

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

If I had to pick all primes:
24L II
ZE 50 f/2
85L II

And for APS-C
Tokina 11-16mm
ZE 35 f/2
ZE 50 f/2 


3 is a really tough decision. I love primes but I'd have pretty limited reach.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Aug 14, 2012)

for me if i can only bring 3 lenses out. it will be

1)24-70mm f2.8
2)17-40mm f4

3) either 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.2


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 14, 2012)

kidnaper said:


> The much desired and wished for 14-24 f/2.8



Well it looks like you'd be shooting with 2 lenses for a while. Pick a lens that exists already, otherwise this is just going to turn into a fantasy wish list. Do it for the people that may be trying to pick lenses right now and want a legitimate opinion.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 14, 2012)

TS-E 24 II (nothing to complain about)
50mm 1.2 (a little soft lens but love the focal lenght)
85mm 1.2 II (perfect image quality and my favorite lens, although i would like it to have weather sealing)

(other lens i really recommend is not available yet, the new 24-70 2.8 II)


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

Tiedtke said:


> I'd go with a wide angle, normal and tele i.e. 16-35mm L II, 24-70mm L II and 70-200mm L IS II.



Yeah those... with a 2x mk.iii TC


----------



## distant.star (Aug 14, 2012)

.
I tried to get into this but couldn't.

Canon makes a broad variety of good interchangeable lens cameras with a vast array of good-to-great lenses. What's the point of denying yourself the right tool for the job?

This, to me, is like asking an auto mechanic which three wrenches he would choose if he could only have three. He'd end up with three adjustable wrenches and screw up or miss a lot of jobs.

I guess I just don't like thinking in terms of limitations if I don't have to.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 14, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Wow a lot of people are shooting with lenses that don't even exist!



If you mean the 24-70L II lens, technically it does exist. 

But the 14-24 crap, yeah, that doesn't count.


----------



## 1nsanity (Aug 14, 2012)

Canon EF 24L 1.4 MKII
Sigma 50 1.4 
Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 IS


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

The ones I already have

24L II

50L

135L

8)


----------



## helpful (Aug 14, 2012)

1. 24mm f/1.4 L II
2. 135mm f/2 L or Sigma 85mm f/1.4
3. 400mm f/4 DO

Those would probably be the only lenses I would actually need. (Update: that was lie, except for a few types of events. I need a lot more lenses than that to cover everything I do.) If a new 135m f/1.8 L comes out, I would go with that. Right now I might actually lean towards the Sigma for the second lens. Of course, the 400mm f/2.8 II would be nice along side #3, but really folks, if I am hunting around through the woods for miles, I am going to regret not choosing the DO lens.

I would long to add a fourth lens, the 200mm f/2.0, but I definitely need the first two lenses on the list, and I need a long lens, so if I had just three, the precious 200mm would have to go. Bummer.

The moral of the story is that three lenses are not enough.

My personal comment is that I find those prime lenses to be much more versatile than zooms. Please take a deep breath and try the 24mm rather than the 16-35mm, for example. It will make you into a better photographer. The same for the 85mm rather than the 24-70mm. I never use my 24-70mm lens. One camera with the 24mm and one with the 85mm blows away any competitors who are standing there with wimpy 24-70mm lenses. No client or photo editor would choose their pictures after they had seen mine. Trust me.

As far as the 50mm classic lens, that is just what someone would need if they had one lens. Don't be superstitious. (This comment wasn't aimed at the poster who just posted a 50mm on their list. I was writing my post at the same time. I am just saying that if I put the 50mm onto my list, it will just push out a lens that would do a better specific job. So there is no reason to include it.)


----------



## M.ST (Aug 14, 2012)

APS-C: 17-55 2.8 S, 70-300 IS

FF: 14, 24-70 2.8 II L, 70-200 2.8 II L IS and both TC´s


----------



## haqyourlegs (Aug 14, 2012)

MiceBass said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Wow a lot of people are shooting with lenses that don't even exist!
> ...



Can't stop laughing. This is excellent.


----------



## thepancakeman (Aug 14, 2012)

distant.star said:


> This, to me, is like asking an auto mechanic which three wrenches he would choose if he could only have three. He'd end up with three adjustable wrenches and screw up or miss a lot of jobs.
> 
> I guess I just don't like thinking in terms of limitations if I don't have to.



Well, as a cyclist I can tell you that I don't tow my toolbox behind me, but there are a few essentials that I stick in my saddle pack or jersey pocket. Likewise in "terms of limitations" most people have a limited budget, and often limited space or inclination to carry around a dozen leses. So I find it to be a perfectly reasonable question.

My $.02:
70-200 2.8 IS
A wide zoom of choice depending on shooting style/subjects
A fast prime in focal length of choice


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > This, to me, is like asking an auto mechanic which three wrenches he would choose if he could only have three. He'd end up with three adjustable wrenches and screw up or miss a lot of jobs.
> ...



+1: The 70-200 2.8 mk.ii is about 140 primes in one... most excellent choice!


----------



## Anthony (Aug 14, 2012)

10-22 / 24-70 II / 70-200 f4 IS for my 7D


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2012)

1. 16-35L II
2. 50L
3. 70-200L f/2.8 II

although

1. 24-70L II
2. 70-200L f/2.8 II
3. 200-400L

would be really tempting.


----------



## mememe (Aug 14, 2012)

Anything out of Canon lens park?

I would go with

24-70 II
70-200 II IS
600 4 II IS


----------



## mjardeen (Aug 14, 2012)

This is a great question that has a pretty simple answer for me:

16-35 L II (I own the 17-40 L)
24-70 Tamron (I own the 24-105 L)
70-200 F4 L which I already own

The reason I take the F$ is sharpness and weight. The Tamron because it has IS and is lighter. The biggest upgrade I want is to sell my IR converted 20D, convert my 5D to IR, and then get the new 6D that is rumored to be coming for higher resolution color.

IR has been an artistic dream for me and one I would suggest to anyone.


----------



## gary (Aug 14, 2012)

My choice would be:

The new 24-70 mkii L hopefully with IS
The 70-200 mkii L IS (already have this and wouldn't be without it)
The 200-400 L IS with built in 1x4 converter.

All Canon I know, I have not really tried a lens from another brand as I'm happy with Canon. I picked these as I believe it will give a full range of options from 24mm-560mm, mainly as I can't seem to pick any one special area I just love to photograph anything.


----------



## daniemare (Aug 14, 2012)

When I travel I normally take only three
Tokina 11-16 F2.8
Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F4

My wife has a Panasonic GF 3 with 20mm F1.7 that is very handy in the evenings. If she doesn't take that, I would swap the Tokina for the Canon 50 F1.4


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 14, 2012)

1. 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2. 24-70 mrk II
3. CRs 14-24 f2.8


----------



## michi (Aug 14, 2012)

For crop I would take:

10-22
15-85
70-200 L IS 

For full frame:

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


----------



## Phenix205 (Aug 14, 2012)

Obviously, most people can have way more than 3 lenses. Sometimes buying new lenses is to rekindle the passion or renew the hobby, not because you need them. So if the question is what 3 lenses to take, I'd pick my old friend 28-70, my new buddy 70-200 IS II, and my next lens 24II. ... and the pancake.


----------



## Joes Dad (Aug 14, 2012)

Including those that exist but not yet generally available:

24-70 f/2.8L II (This is the hard one - would have difficulty not choosing the 24 f/1.4L instead)
70-200 f/2.8L II
200-400 f/4.0L

Thankfully, not my problem though.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 14, 2012)

I have several lenses but if I chose only 3:

24-105 4
70-200 2.8
35 1.4


----------



## funkboy (Aug 14, 2012)

Weeelll, while we're at speculating, if we're talking about a theoretical setup here, I'd generalize & say:

- a wide-angle zoom with a constant aperture of at least f/4, preferably f/2.8 (Tokina & Canon both have existing real-world options, though Tokina rules the crop crop).

- a theoretical stabilized fast prime somewhere around the "wide to normal" range e.g. somewhere between 30 & 60mm on FF and 20 & 40mm on 1.6x. I also think that a 22-45mm f/2 zoom lens would be an excellent replacement for a sack full of wide/standard primes if done right.

- a stabilized fast telephoto zoom like the the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8 IS Ls.

- a teleconverter and a 12mm macro ring 

In the future, I think "what if" threads like this would be more useful if they were a bit more targeted e.g. "What if you could only have 3 lenses to shoot a wedding" or "pick 3 lenses for a landscape kit" etc.


----------



## mortadella (Aug 14, 2012)

K-amps said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Technically speaking it would be 131 primes but who's counting...totally agree though!

to pretty much be able to get 90% of possible subjects you would need the most range, so for range I think you would almost have to go:

24-70 II
70-200 2.8 IS II
200-400 1.4x

No gaps no overlaps!!

These below would take care of about 8% of the remaining 10, but we only get 3...booo!!!

17 TSE
100 2.8L macro
600


----------



## ablearcher (Aug 14, 2012)

My choice would be:

35L
70-200 2.8L IS II
135L

I would miss an ultra wide angle but if I had to make a choice this would be it.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2012)

24 f1,4 L II
35 f1,4 L (II)
50 f1,2 L


----------



## dafrank (Aug 14, 2012)

Simple:
24-70 f/2.8L V2
70-200 f2.8L V2
17mm f/4.0L TSE

And, if I could cheat a little, throw in a 1.4X v3 teleconverter, technically not a photo lens itself.

This would cover 95% of whatever I have needed to shoot. Of course, adding back my 16-35L v2, 85 f1.2 v2, 90mm TSE, 24 TSE V2, and maybe a 300 f/4.0 or 400 mm f/5.6 L would certainly round things out a lot better, filling in some gaps better than using my feet to do something similar.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 14, 2012)

Easy - 24mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 70-200 f4 is


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2012)

compact and light

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS (Have it)
Nikkor 105mm f/f.5 AIS (Have it)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (have it)

with a couple $10 adapters, the first 2 work just fine all manual on all my Canon bodies too.
I'd have chosen the Nikkor 50/1.4 but the Canon's a little sharper on FF.


----------



## fegari (Aug 14, 2012)

For FF, I'm a happy camper with


Zeiss 21/2.8
Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar
Canon 70-200L F4 IS (+ 1.4x Extender when needed)

With this setup I now hardly use the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar which was my most used lens until the last two arrived.


----------



## J (Aug 14, 2012)

APS:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (yes, really)

35mm:
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus (yes, really)


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 14, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Fellow Photogs,
> 
> Just for the "what if", so if you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they be...& if you want, why?



Sorry, non Canon. I take a Zeiss Biogon 38mm/4.5 T* as found on the SWC/M Hasselblad. Then the 35/2.0 Summicron Asph. and 90mm/2.0 Summicron Apo Asph. from Leica, on any Leica film or M9 camera.

I've got a photograph in my family room, 48x48 inches, taken with my old SWC/M that you can get a foot away from and marvel at the detail. Just an amazing lens. And yah, that print, framed cost me about $400 nearly 15 years ago.


----------



## photogaz (Aug 14, 2012)

35L
24-70
70-200 f2.8 II


----------



## jmanley (Aug 14, 2012)

I've seen it already but my kit would be:

24-70 2.8 II
85 1.2 II
70-200 2.8 IS II

I'm a wedding and portrait guy though...if i had more time for landscapes my answer would be different.


----------



## pwp (Aug 15, 2012)

Everyone's answer is 100% valid for _their _ style of shooting. I'm a zooms guy, the flexibility when working quickly or in environments where lens changes are a one-way ticket to sensor grunge makes them a no brainer in my business. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my primes, the 24 f/1.4II and 300 f/2.8IS in particular, but if I was restricted to just three, here they are:

1. 16-35L f/2.8II
2. 24-70L f/2.8II (coming soon to replace the 24-105L f/4IS)
3. 70-200L f/2.8IS II

-PW


----------



## ecka (Aug 15, 2012)

3 lenses may be not enough for FF+primes-only shooter like me, but I'm thinking about
35L+85L+Σ150EX
or maybe
24L+50L+100L


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 15, 2012)

The question is not that difficult...

A. If it has to be Canon and they can't be the same, I'd start with: 
1. EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM 
2. EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
3. EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

B. If it doesn't have to be Canon and they can't be the same, I'd start with:
1. Leica APO-TELYT-R 1:5.6 1600mm 
2. Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4
3. EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM 

Having sold all three and depending upon the set A or B, I'd buy better or worse house or palace, boat and a car with alive driver who'd bring me from his first test drive to downtown three decent lenses: 24 II, 85 1.2, 70-200 II...


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 15, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Fellow Photogs,
> 
> Just for the "what if", so if you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they be...& if you want, why?



MC Flektogon 50mm f/4.0 ; MC Biometar 120mm f/2.8 ; MC Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 (on Pentacon Six, hmmm, i've already got this kit...)

Or maybe:
Distagon 35mm f/2.8 ; Planar 80mm f/2.0 ; MC Sonnar 300mm f/4.0 (on Contax 645)

How about:
Summilux 21mm f/1.4 ; Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 ; Apo-Summicron 90mm f/2.0 (on Leica M)


----------



## Goshdern (Aug 15, 2012)

The ones in my bag, we have a 5dii and 7d so the 70-200 on the FF and 85 on the 7d (all hail auto iso set to 400!) make for really nice pics. And the 16-35 just completes our needs... It's perfect!

16-35 2.8L II, 85 1.2L II, 70-200 2.8L IS II

That's where I put my money and I don't regret it.


----------



## davidchang (Aug 15, 2012)

16-35L 
50L
100L
mostly travel photography here.
i rarely use my 70-200


----------



## mojo0975 (Aug 15, 2012)

For Crop:
Tokina 11-16
Canon 17-55
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

For FF:
TS-E 17mm f/4L
24-70 f/2.8L II
70-200 f/2.8 IS II


----------



## DMITPHOTO (Aug 15, 2012)

14mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8
100mm 2.8 Macro


----------



## elflord (Aug 15, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Fellow Photogs,
> 
> Just for the "what if", so if you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they be...& if you want, why?



My full frame setup is more or less: 

135L,
Sigma 85mm f/1.4
35L

on APS-C, I'd go with 
50mm f/1.4,
Sigma 85mm 
something wider (not sure what)


----------



## jVillaPhoto (Aug 15, 2012)

Pretty much the only three I have now..

50L
24-70L
70-200 f/2.8L II


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 15, 2012)

Initial though is: -

16-35mm f/2.8L 
135mm f/2.0L 
400mm f/2.8L IS II (Have never used one, but I think I'd have a lot of fun with it).

I've got a Mamiya 6 which only has three lenses - 50 / 75 /150mm. Sometimes I wish the 50mm was a bit wider, but in theory I don't mind being restricted in lens choice.


----------



## skitron (Aug 15, 2012)

If the new 24-70L lives up to the hype, then that one plus a 100L and a 200L F2 IS (and then I'd get a 1.4x teleconverter since it's technically not a lens  ) 

But alas my budget brings me back to the reality of the three in my signature line below...a heck of a good bang for well under $2K but I'd much rather have the dream team above...


----------



## Menace (Aug 15, 2012)

24-70 f2.8 II
70-200 f2.8 IS II
400 2.8 IS II


----------



## candyman (Aug 15, 2012)

That would be:
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 MKII
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII
Canon 200-400mm (incl. 1.4 ext) 

But, with a camera that supports a good quality high ISO (so to compensate for not having f/1.2, or f/1.4)


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 15, 2012)

Probably 70-200 2.8II (plus 2xIII), the 24-70 2.8II, and hopefully a 14 or 16-24. These are just zooms, someday if I get into primes the tri might change.


----------



## Nyc2dc (Aug 16, 2012)

Easy
14mm 2.8L ii
35mm 1.4L
135mm 2.0L


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 16, 2012)

Since i got APS-C it would be

Canon 24mm 1.4 L II
Canon 50mm 1.2L


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Aug 16, 2012)

For a full frame camera:
Canon 24-70/2.8L II
Canon 100/2,8L Macro IS
Canon 200-400/4L Extender 1.4x


----------



## fotografnuntaiasi (Sep 11, 2012)

Old 28-70L 2,8
85L 1,2
70-200L 2,8


----------



## K-amps (Sep 11, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Probably 70-200 2.8II (plus 2xIII), the 24-70 2.8II, and hopefully a 14 or 16-35. These are just zooms, someday if I get into primes the tri might change.



+1


----------



## Brandonw365 (Sep 11, 2012)

16-35 2.8
50 1.4
70-200 2.8L


----------



## pdirestajr (Sep 11, 2012)

Really enjoy mixing these 3 lenses on my 7D & 5DII:

24mm f/1.4 II
40mm f/2.8
135mm f/2


----------



## Pixel_crab (Sep 11, 2012)

Just another one and it is done:

ef 24mm 1.4 L II (next purchase)
ef 50mm 1.4
ef 70-200mm 2..8 L IS II


----------



## snowweasel (Sep 11, 2012)

If we're going with lenses I own already, I'd have to go with the widest range & brightest glass, which gives me:

16-35 f2.8L II, 24-105 f4L IS, and 70-200 f2.8L II IS

If I could have my choice of lenses I don't own, I'd swap out the 24-105 with the new 24-70 2.8L II, giving me 16-200mm at 2.8.

I could probably be convinced to swap the 16-35 out for a faster prime and/or a macro lens, as well...


----------



## jsbraby (Sep 11, 2012)

35 f1.4L
100 f2.8L Macro IS
200 f2.8L II

Carried with my 5d3 and 7d. Covers nearly everything I need.


----------



## acoll123 (Sep 11, 2012)

I shoot a lot of sports so:

Canon 24-70 2.8 II
Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS
Canon 400 2.8 II IS


----------



## acoll123 (Sep 11, 2012)

acoll123 said:


> I shoot a lot of sports so:
> 
> Canon 24-70 2.8 II
> Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS
> Canon 400 2.8 II IS



I might change out the 400 2.8 for the 200-400 L if I could use it on a 1DX, I think I would miss the stop at night games . . . but the flexibility might be worth it.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 11, 2012)

I basically shoot for my family:

Budget 1000-2500:
Canon 24-105 F/4
Sigma 50mm F/1.4
Canon 70-200 F/4 IS

Budget 2500-4000:
Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 VC
Sigma 50mm F/1.4
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2

Budget 4000-6000:
Canon 24-70 F/2.8 MK2
Canon 35mm F/1.4
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS MK2


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm a newb, so here's what I'd pick for my crop Canon:

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-55 2.8
EF 70-200L 2.8

If you plan on purchasing filters, then these lenses are all 77mm - only need one set 

of course, if I could cheat, I'd add the 100mm L 2.8 macro.


----------



## Click (Sep 12, 2012)

24-70 f/2.8L II 
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
200-400 f/4.0L IS (1.4X)


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 15, 2012)

24mm f1.4 Mark II
50mm f1.2
85mm f1.2 Mark II


----------



## cptobvious (Sep 16, 2012)

17-40L
50L
70-200 f/2.8 II L


----------



## sumanrk152 (Sep 16, 2012)

17- 40 
50 L
70-200 f/2.8


----------



## MarkIII (Sep 16, 2012)

16-35 2.8 II
24-70 2.8 II 
70-200 2.8 II 

Covers the focal range for me. If I can't get what I need with those lenses, I need to move myself not get a longer lens.


----------



## HughHowey (Sep 16, 2012)

24mm 1.4 II
50mm 1.2
70-200 2.8 II

I can't believe so many people would be fine with nothing faster than 2.8 in their kit.


----------



## ecka (Sep 16, 2012)

MarkIII said:


> 16-35 2.8 II
> 24-70 2.8 II
> 70-200 2.8 II
> 
> Covers the focal range for me. If I can't get what I need with those lenses, I need to move myself not get a longer lens.



May I ask how often do you shoot (let's say) at 91mm or 194mm focal length? Why do you need to cover the whole range? Just curious .
My experience with zooms was that I tend to find the sweet spot or two and use it like a prime lens (to minimize the distortion, aberrations, softness etc.).



HughHowey said:


> 24mm 1.4 II
> 50mm 1.2
> 70-200 2.8 II
> 
> I can't believe so many people would be fine with nothing faster than 2.8 in their kit.


 Me too


----------



## Taemobig (Sep 16, 2012)

24-70 2.8 mk II
70-200 2.8 IS mk II
50 1.2

I actually have the same set up but I have 24-70 mk1 and 50 1.4

24-70 and 70-200 covers a huge range of focal lengths and the 50mm is for low light situations.


----------



## alexturton (Sep 16, 2012)

sigma 30mm 1.4
canon 100mm macro
canon 300 2.8


----------



## TriGGy (Sep 16, 2012)

My dream kit:

16-35mm f/2.8 II USM
24-70mm f/2.8 II USM
70-200mm f/2.8 II IS USM

All the expensive stuff. Yet I only have a 24-105mm f/4 IS USM and a 50mm f/1.8 II for now. Quite a long ways to go.


----------



## nicku (Sep 16, 2012)

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


----------



## mirekti (Sep 16, 2012)

I'm sorry but I have to extend it to 3.5 lenses

imaginary 12-24 2.8 L 
24-70 2.8 II or 85 1.2 II 
70-200 2.8 II + 2x III (apparently quite same IQ as 1.4x, 1 stop less though)

I put 4.5 accutally, stupid :-[


----------



## old_york (Sep 16, 2012)

16-35L
50 1.2L
70 - 200 II IS


but would REALLY miss a macro lens


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 16, 2012)

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


----------



## stephan (Sep 16, 2012)

As I only have 3 lenses, it's quite easy. Looking back, I would choose the same (on a crop body)

17-55 2.8 IS
50 1.4 (money no object I might choose the 35 1.4 L instead, just to get a little more in the shot when I usually use this lens)
70-200 2.8 L IS


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 16, 2012)

My walk around kit of three lenses is:
Canon 
8-15mm f4 fisheye
24-105mm IS f4
300mm IS f4

This gives me tremendous range.

At night or if i think I'm shooting people I'll ad the 50mm f1.4.


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 16, 2012)

In order to get my 5D3 body I had to sell and reduce to three lenses with the exception of the Composer. 

24-70 mk1
40 2.8
70-200 f/4

If I had to have a dream team it would be as many have mentioned before:
16-35
24-70 mk2
70-200 2.8 IS

For Primes it would be 
24 L
85L
135L


----------



## MaGiL (Sep 16, 2012)

24L F1.4 II
35L F1.4
85L F1.2 II


----------



## extremeinstability (Sep 16, 2012)

On crop the last several years I've had just 3...

10-22
50 1.8
100-400

Switching to full frame this week so, .....

100-400
Buying 24 1.4L II(glad to see that one listed so many times in this)
Third gets tricky if I can only have 3. I want 24 for 1.4 night stuff, but it's still not wide enough for what I mostly shoot, storms. It can be I guess. But once I have the 24L with my 100-400L....the next thing I'd be interested in getting is likely going to be the 15mm Zeiss. Wish the 21mm Zeiss qualities were in the 18mm as I could live with that wideness for max wide lens. So yeah, would probably bite on the 15 Zeiss.


----------



## Standard (Sep 16, 2012)

on my 5DM2

24L
50L
135L


----------



## mecky (Sep 16, 2012)

These lenses are left after partially switching to Nikon:

16-35mm f/2.8 II USM
50mm f/1.2 L USM (I prefer the 50L because the 24-70/2,8 is a bit boring)
70-200mm f/2.8 II IS USM

(ok there is also the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro)


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Sep 16, 2012)

I have my three lenses that I carry around everywhere. 
The Canon 50mm 1.8 II, I am on a budget and it is a great lens for portraits and walking around, it's light and amazing.

The Sigma 105mm F/2.8 Macro EX DG, sharper then the Canon 100mm L, lighter and only cost me $300 on Ebay.

The Canon 17-40mm F/4 L USM, Wide angle to regular, very sharp, great for landscapes, the lightest L lens.

With the three lenses above, I have every focal length I need and they are all light and pretty cheap.


----------



## Physicx (Sep 16, 2012)

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II
Sigma 50mm 1.4
Canon 70-200 f/2.8


----------



## nikkito (Sep 16, 2012)

16-35mm f/2.8 II USM
24-70mm f/2.8 II USM
70-200mm f/2.8 II IS USM


----------



## madspihl (Sep 16, 2012)

16-35L
50 1.2L
70 - 200 2.8 II IS

(for now I am coping quite nicely with the 50 1.4)


----------



## Gadger (Sep 17, 2012)

Click said:


> 24-70 f/2.8L II
> 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
> 200-400 f/4.0L IS (1.4X)



I would pick the same


----------



## SJTstudios (Sep 17, 2012)

Canon 24-70 ii
Canon 70-200 2.8 is ii
Sigma 120-300 2.8 os


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 17, 2012)

I have the 24-105, 200L, 135L, 50L and 50 1.4 for my EOS camera. Plus a converted FD 500/8 reflex.


50L and 135L are a no brainer. I'd have to think long and hard what a third one would be. Maybe a 24-70 version 1 or one of the TS lenses that are at the top of my short list.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 17, 2012)

If I'll only have 3 lenses, they would be:

16-35 F2.8 (landscape)
100mm F2.8 macro IS USM (macro/portrait)
28-300mm F3.5-5.6 L IS USM (general/sports) but if I can carry 4, this will be broken down to 24-70 F2.8L and 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM.

of course, body must be 1DX or 5D3 so I can use the extra high ISOs.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 17, 2012)

Ef 14-24 f2.8L
Ef 50/1.2L
Ef 200/2.0L

I'd miss my 24L and 35L.


----------



## CanonOregon (Sep 17, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Fellow Photogs,
> 
> Just for the "what if", so if you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they be...& if you want, why?


For my 7d? 10-22mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm general photography
Wildlife, scenic wish list? 5d body and 15-35mm, 24-70mm, 600mm


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 17, 2012)

Samyang 35mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.2L and Canon 200mm f/2


----------



## vlim (Sep 17, 2012)

My Choices

The expensive ones :

24-70mm f/2.8 L II
100mm f/2.8 L IS
300mm f/2.8 L IS II

The realistic ones :

17-40mm f/4 L
100mm f/2.8 L IS
300mm f/4 L IS

8)


----------



## MarkIII (Sep 18, 2012)

ecka said:


> MarkIII said:
> 
> 
> > 16-35 2.8 II
> ...


----------



## yoho (Sep 20, 2012)

Canon
{
EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
24-70mm f/2.8L II
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II
}


----------



## RuneL (Sep 20, 2012)

16-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8


----------



## UrbanImages (Sep 20, 2012)

Well since I have them and are the most used: 17-40 4L, 24-70L and 70-200L II


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 20, 2012)

full frame:
* EF 14-24 / 2.8 L ... optically like the Nikon but usable with 82mm filters 
* EF 24-70 / 2.8 L IS .... like the II, but with IS and for less than 2 grand
* EF 70-200 / 2.8 L III IS ... like the II, but all black, like the 24-70 

Crop:
* 10-22 / 4.0 ... optically further improved, constant f/4.0, weathersealing
* 17-55 / 2.8 II IS ... optically unchanged, but weathersealing added
* 50-150 / 2.8 IS .... optically as good as the 70-200 II, but black and as compact as the Sigma, less than 2k 

;D


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 20, 2012)

Given the 24-70 and 70-200 I have now, either a wide-angle or a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That those three are the same filter size is a convenient perk.

Jim


----------



## dbduchene (Sep 20, 2012)

Canon 16-35 F2.8 L
Canon 28-70 F2.8 L IS 
Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS II 

and a 2X teleconverter 
I am planing and this in fact becoming my travel bag with a 5D and 7D body along with my 15mm 2.8 fisheye and I cannot figure out why canon stopped making the fish eye


----------



## Gary W. (Sep 20, 2012)

Hey all,

24-70mm f2.8L II
70-200mm f2.8L IS II
300mm f2.8L IS II OR 400 f2.8L IS II

Gary W.


----------



## tyfn (Sep 20, 2012)

24mm f/1.4 L
50mm f/1.2 L 
70-200 f/2.8L IS II

Right now I have a Canon XSi.


----------



## expo01 (Sep 20, 2012)

First off, it is a really hard choice to make. But considering the various types of things I do, I might come up with following answer.

17 TS-E (close call between the 17 and 24, choosing the 17 because of the density in switzerland (architectural) and the good usage in landscape work)
50 1.2 (got to have a standard lens, the 1.2 is just better than all the alternatives, even though it's not the best lens ever created. to be fair, there is a lack of good 50's)
70-200 2.8 IS II (i just have to have this one. this lens gets the most use any day. perfect for portraiture, sporting events, speeches etc.)


----------



## ecka (Sep 20, 2012)

expo01 said:


> First off, it is a really hard choice to make. But considering the various types of things I do, I might come up with following answer.
> 
> 17 TS-E (close call between the 17 and 24, choosing the 17 because of the density in switzerland (architectural) and the good usage in landscape work)
> 50 1.2 (got to have a standard lens, the 1.2 is just better than all the alternatives, even though it's not the best lens ever created. to be fair, there is a lack of good 50's)
> 70-200 2.8 IS II (i just have to have this one. this lens gets the most use any day. perfect for portraiture, sporting events, speeches etc.)



Good choice, a lot of logic in that


----------



## caMARYnon (Sep 20, 2012)

Canon6D said:


> Exactly the three lenses I already own:
> 
> - Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
> - Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (+ Kenko MC4 1,4x DGX)
> - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro


In realistic mode, the same (except kenko - canon preferred).
In my dream: 24-105L for general + 100 L for macro + 200-400 L for wild


----------



## Danielle (Sep 20, 2012)

Canon ef-s 10-22mm (because Im using a 7D) - Love that lens.
Zeiss 35mm f2
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L is ii usm

Kind of covers all bases pretty perfectly for me. Personally I don't really 'need' much more than that. In fact I could save $1000 and get the non is 70-200 f2.8 and put the extra towards some elinchrom ranger quadra's.

If I was using full frame it would change to a 16-35mm and a 50mm L (I think).


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 22, 2012)

Since we are allowed to include imaginary lenses...

14-24mm f/2.8 TS-E (w/ AF)
50mm f/1.2 L II
85-135mm f/2 IS Macro


----------



## Zo0m (Sep 22, 2012)

Leica Summilux-M 35mm f1.4 ASPH
Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f0.95 ASPH
Leica Summicron-M 90mm f2.0 ASPH


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 22, 2012)

Zo0m said:


> Leica Summilux-M 35mm f1.4 ASPH
> Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f0.95 ASPH
> Leica Summicron-M 90mm f2.0 ASPH



This is just about as fictional as imaginary lenses. ;-)


----------



## revup67 (Sep 25, 2012)

Ha..just realized this question seems unreasonable and merely hypothetical. "If" is implied but not correct (at least in this man's myopic ways). Then I noticed my signature and its contents then got brought back to reality...thank goodness..simply a bad day dream (worked hard to get to get to this point!)


----------



## pasghik (Sep 25, 2012)

Tokina 16-28 (or better Nikon 14-24 for canon )
Tamron 24-70 IS
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 27, 2012)

EF 70-200 f2.8L USM IS Mark II
EF-S 17-55 f2.8 USM IS
EF 35 f2.0 (would trade for an EF 30 f2.0 pancake – if only it existed)


----------



## lucuias (Sep 27, 2012)

The best of the range to cover landscape,portrait,wedding and street photography.

Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 
Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 USM II
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS USM II


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 28, 2012)

Thankfully there are so many excellent choices!


----------



## EvaCasado (Sep 30, 2012)

For my current FF setup:

24-70 2.8L II
16-35 2.8L

And a new TSE lens, the actual ones are not to my taste.


----------



## Tammy (Sep 30, 2012)

24-70L II
135L
24L II, or the eventual 35L II or 50L II


----------



## hopopotamus (Oct 1, 2012)

My choice is 16-35mm 2.8f L ll, 24-70mm 2.8f L ( for now ) and 70-200mm f 2.8 is ll. I can't imagine any real life situation where one of this 3 lenses will not get a job done 
Of course in real life once you start with the addiction you can never stop. I have 5 lenses and I have my eye on at least 2 more for now.


----------



## sweetcancer (Oct 1, 2012)

24 1.4 L II
50 1.2 L
85 1.2 L II

That would get me through life. Oh, i'd also need a Canon camera, since I sold mine and ordered a nikon d600 with nikkor 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G (yeah i know, could've gone with the 50 1.4G. Didn't) and 85 1.8G.


----------



## Zv (Oct 2, 2012)

I'm torn between all primes or the versatility of zooms. I think in order to cover most situations I would have to go with -

16-35 f/2.8 II
24-70 f/2.8 II 
70-200L f/2.8 IS II (though I could get by with a 85L)

I have a feelin I might end up with these one day ;D


----------



## jrista (Oct 2, 2012)

Bird, Wildlife, and Landscape kit:

EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L II IS
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II

This assumes that teleconverters are allowed, in which case I'd also have the Kenko 1.4x DGX and EF 2x III TC's. I think that would cover most of my needs. Focal lengths range from 16mm through 400mm without gaps when factoring in the teleconverters, plus 420mm and 600mm. If teleconverters are disallowed:

EF 600mm f/4 L II IS
EF 100mm f/2.8 L II IS Macro
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II

I'd like to have the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x as well, but as a niche lens I don't think it would be as versatile as the 16-35mm and 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses.


----------



## odie (Oct 2, 2012)

I would go for primes. 

35.4L, 85.2L and 135.2L


----------



## killswitch (Oct 2, 2012)

For crop

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 DX Pro MK II
Canon 24-70 f2.8L MK II
Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II

For FF

Canon 14-24 f2.8L =D (If Canon ever made one that equals Nikon's one)
Canon 24-70 f2.8L MK II
Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 2, 2012)

24-70/2.8II
70-200/2.8ISII
Those two cover the everyday situations nicely.
As the last one - the 200-400/4 seems to be to be a good choice, but depending on my mood a macro, TS-E, or Lensbaby might get the spot. Esp. if TCs don't count as lenses...and do closeup filters count?


----------



## tnargs (Oct 2, 2012)

For all-round general purpose flexibility and a 28mm sensor,

EF-S 10-22mm

EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS - mounted on the camera!

EF 70-300mm L IS


However if macro is a serious priority,

EF 100mm f2.8 L IS - doubles as a portrait lens

EF-S 15-85mm IS

EF 70-300mm IS


----------



## Promature (Oct 2, 2012)

Well, I used this thread and some others to help me decide on this trio during the 20% refurb sale:
EF-S 17-55 f2.8
EF 85 f1.8
EF 70-200 f4 (non-IS, shooting kids sports outdoors in sunny Florida)

I know it doesn't sound very impressive against everyone's dream list that costs $10k+, but I'd say I did alright for $1.5k and got 95% of the performance those lists offered.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 2, 2012)

For APS-C:
10-22 + 60mm Macro + 4.0/70-200
EDIT: the Why: wide and tele landscape/townscape/industrial landscapes + nature photography (Macro) + lightweight + compact +excellent IQ

For Full Frame:
40 + 2.8/100 Macro + 4.0/70-200 w/ 2xTC
EDIT: the Why: tele landscape/townscape/industrial landscapes + nature photography (Macro) + lightweight + compact +excellent IQ - missing good wide angle zoom for FF from Canon (see below) so the shorty forty should compensate until ...

Just missing the full frame body (6D , if IQ is excellent) ...
And I would replace the shorty forty with a 17-40 Mk II if it
delivers good edge to edge sharpness from f4.0 on in the
full frame set.

Best - Michael


----------



## tnargs (Oct 2, 2012)

Promature said:


> Well, I used this thread and some others to help me decide on this trio during the 20% refurb sale:
> EF-S 17-55 f2.8
> EF 85 f1.8
> EF 70-200 f4 (non-IS, shooting kids sports outdoors in sunny Florida)
> ...



Excellent lenses, you are in for a treat!


----------



## Zv (Oct 2, 2012)

tnargs said:


> Promature said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I used this thread and some others to help me decide on this trio during the 20% refurb sale:
> ...



+ 1 on the kit (almost like mine) I would recommend picking up the 50mm f/1.8, it's super cheap but very discreet (as opposed to the 17-55 which tends to scare people - _or maybe its me!_) and great for kids. I find the 85 a bit long on a crop body for indoor stuff.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 3, 2012)

35L
100L
70-200 2.8 IS II


----------



## Sitting Elf (Oct 5, 2012)

Easy!

24-70 f/2.8L II
70-200 f/2.8 L II
The upcoming 200-400 f/4L with built in 1.4X

That gives me a total reach of 24mm (on my 1DX and 5D3) to 896mm (using the 1.4X on my 7D)


----------



## runninghead (Oct 5, 2012)

24-70, 85 f/1.2, and a 300 f/2.8 II would be a killer combo!


----------



## Romandoc (Oct 9, 2012)

From wide to tele:

Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm f/2.8 ZE Lens for Canon EF
Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL II Aspherical Lens for Canon
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

Can I do 3 more, in addition to the must-haves mentioned above?
Here they are, from the most to least desirable:

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II 
Canon Telephoto EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro
Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye


----------

