[KANdaddy]

Looking for opinions here.

My initial choice is a 18-200mm zoom and a 55mm 1.8 fixed. Can't think of what the third lens would be. Maybe a wide angle?

[Sylon]

I only have 3 lenses for my Nikon D200.

Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (D80 kit lens)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Sigma 10-20mm f/1.4-5.6 wide angle


The 18-135mm s a great general purpose lens with a decent zoom range. The 50mm has a great shallow DOF, really good low light, and is really inexpensive. The Sigma has a perfect wide angle look and sharpness all the way to the edge of the frame.

I dont plan on buying anymore lenses anytime soon.

[TL]

I have the 18-200mm VR (best walk around lens i have own)
I want a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S or 50mm f/1.4 AF-D but have the 35mm f/1.8

For wide lens shooting I want the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X

[SteveMD]

I have the 18-200 VR AF-S Love it.

Also the 35mm F1.8 prime which takes georgeous photos.

I also have the kit lens 18-55 from my old D40 which isn't bad but it is redundant given my other two lens.

I suppose I would like the 17-55 F2.8 but it is spendy at $1100. After the D300S purchase, I fear if I purchased the lens, I would be taking photos of my shit being thrown out on the front lawn

[oneintheory]

i couldn't just own three.
if i had to go on a trip, i'd take (bear in mind these are full frame, not crop)
a 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8.

[vachss]

Back when I shot crop I traveled with a 10-22, 100/2.8 macro and a 300/4. Covered pretty much everything I wanted to shoot.

[PNF]

Canon FF

24-70 f2.8, 85 f1.2, 70-200 f2.8

Canon crop

16-35mm f2.8, 35 f1.4, 70-200 f2.8

[Yvette]

Sigma 10-20mm
This is all I need now

[E92Fan]

If I could only take two lenses with my Nikon body, I'd use a 16-35mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. If I knew I wouldn't be needing the reach of a 200mm lens, I'd ditch the zoom and take my 85mm f/1.4. That's a light kit - two lenses and a D700

If I could take three lens, it would still be 16-35mm, 70-200mm and the 50mm f/1.4

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by E92Fan

If I could only take two lenses with my Nikon body, I'd use a 16-35mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. If I knew I wouldn't be needing the reach of a 200mm lens, I'd ditch the zoom and take my 85mm f/1.4. That's a light kit - two lenses and a D700

If I could take three lens, it would still be 16-35mm, 70-200mm and the 50mm f/1.4

How do you like the D700?

[BMW F22]

2-3 lenses? That's easy: 24-70, 70-200 (or 100-400) and maybe a prime like an 85mm. I have the 24-70, 70-200, and a 50mm. That pretty much covers everything. I'm thinking of picking up an 85mm in the future because it seems like a good lens. I also got my eye on the 7D so that I could mount the 70-200mm on there and utilize the 1.6x (?) crop sensor. It'd also be more convenient when I go shooting instead of having to swap lenses so often. I have a 5D right now so with the 7D and those lenses I'm good to go.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

2-3 lenses? That's easy: 24-70, 70-200 (or 100-400) and maybe a prime like an 85mm. I have the 24-70, 70-200, and a 50mm. That pretty much covers everything. I'm thinking of picking up an 85mm in the future because it seems like a good lens. I also got my eye on the 7D so that I could mount the 70-200mm on there and utilize the 1.6x (?) crop sensor. It'd also be more convenient when I go shooting instead of having to swap lenses so often. I have a 5D right now so with the 7D and those lenses I'm good to go.

Running a 70-200 on a 7D would be like running a 1.6 teleconverter, but without the f-stop penalties! Put your wide angle or mid-range on your 5D and I think you have a very, very nice setup! Well, other than having two cameras to lug around!

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by scollins

Running a 70-200 on a 7D would be like running a 1.6 teleconverter, but without the f-stop penalties! Put your wide angle or mid-range on your 5D and I think you have a very, very nice setup! Well, other than having two cameras to lug around!

Yeah I thought about the teleconverter route. However, sometimes I just wish I has a second body. I think the 7D is perfect for that. It's not just the 1.6x that I'm interested in. I like the 8 fps, the new focusing system and all the focus points, 100% view, live view, etc. Wouldn't that be a nice combo though? A full frame for portraits and landscapes and cropped body for everything else.

[jay spec]

Canon FF

35L
85LII
70-200LII

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by Railgun

I'm almost with E92fan. I shoot the same body, though I'd opt for the 14-24 and stick with the 70-200 (VR II) and AF-S 50 f/1.4. Since this doesn't count, I'd also grab the new teleconverter in case I need any extra length. Losing 2 stops is fine by me. Now if Nikon would get their collective heads out of their arses and get some 1080 video in their bodies...

I wish they'd leave the video to camcorders and spend the money developing other things. I'm curious to know how often the owners of $3k+ semi-pro and pro cameras actually use the video function for serious work

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by Dan in PA

How do you like the D700?

I love the D700 for everyday shooting. It's a good deal smaller (if I don't use the vertical grip) than my D3x and has better high ISO detail and resolution. The D3x is epic at low ISO and for landscape or studio work it's utterly amazing. I just think the D700 is a better overall camera

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by Railgun

I'm almost with E92fan. I shoot the same body, though I'd opt for the 14-24 and stick with the 70-200 (VR II) and AF-S 50 f/1.4. Since this doesn't count, I'd also grab the new teleconverter in case I need any extra length. Losing 2 stops is fine by me. Now if Nikon would get their collective heads out of their arses and get some 1080 video in their bodies...

Only reason why I went with the 16-35 is because it can take filters. You can even put a B+W Kaseman Slim circular polariser on the front and it won't vignette. Linear distortion at 16mm is something you need to be aware off, but the lens is every bit as sharp, even into the corners, as the 14-24 and there's less chromatic abberation too. F/4 isn't a deal breaker for me as I'm not looking to isolate that much of the background when using it. Indoor shooting is fine as I have more range in the D700 than let's say a D90 or D300

I forgot about the teleconverter. I use a TC14II mostly - great to have with the 70-200

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by Railgun

See the thread about House being done with a 5D?



I agree about the 16-35 re: filters. As soon as I had read about it I started to toss the pros/cons around between it and the 14-24. Filters are a huge plus at the very least with a UV. Though, with some of the things I'm playing with (or want to) I'd prefer the faster lens, the wider angle of view and blowing out the background may work for me as well. Granted you can do that in PS, I think I'd rather shoot like that. I suppose I'll have to rent the 16-35 to get some hands on. I've played with the 14-24, but not long enough.

I used to have a 14-24, but swapped it for the 16-35. Sounds like a strange move I know, but the filter ability was a big thing for me. I'm shooting a lot with moving vehicles and to be able to use a polariser to get rid of reflections is a major bonus. I don't find the loss of 2mm at the wide end is anything to worry about when using a full-frame body, and for reportage stuff being able to go to 35mm is a huge plus point.

[ichiban]

if i could have 3 lenses, i'd take the prime trinity. 35L 85L 135L

[KANdaddy]

So I went ahead and picked up a 18-200 and a 50 prime. I think that will do me ok for now.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Railgun

I agree about the 16-35 re: filters. As soon as I had read about it I started to toss the pros/cons around between it and the 14-24. Filters are a huge plus at the very least with a UV. Though, with some of the things I'm playing with (or want to) I'd prefer the faster lens, the wider angle of view and blowing out the background may work for me as well. Granted you can do that in PS, I think I'd rather shoot like that. I suppose I'll have to rent the 16-35 to get some hands on. I've played with the 14-24, but not long enough.

Originally Posted by E92Fan

I used to have a 14-24, but swapped it for the 16-35. Sounds like a strange move I know, but the filter ability was a big thing for me. I'm shooting a lot with moving vehicles and to be able to use a polariser to get rid of reflections is a major bonus. I don't find the loss of 2mm at the wide end is anything to worry about when using a full-frame body, and for reportage stuff being able to go to 35mm is a huge plus point.

The other option is the older 17-35 f2.8 (which I have.) I really wish that Nikon had made the 16-35 f4 VR an f2.8 instead. Canon has a 16-35 f2.8 (non IS), so Nikon engineers should be able to get that last 1mm and still fit in VR....

As for the 3 lenses, that is all I've got at the moment:
Nikkor 17-35 f2.8
Nikkor 50mm f1.8
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRI

As I'm currently shooting DX, I may add the following at some point:
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (although I try to avoid DX-only lenses....)
Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 (I'm guessing this will be upgraded to a VR version at some point....)
Nikkor teleconverters (debating 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x....)

I'd also love to have a 300mm f2.8, but they are big bucks. If anyone notices a pattern, it is that I don't want lenses any slower than f2.8, and any zoom has to be a constant aperture. No more variable aperture slow zooms for me!


If I step up to full frame and could only have 3 lenses, they'd be:
Nikkor 14-24 f2.8
Nikkor 24-70 f2.8
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by Railgun

See the thread about House being done with a 5D?

I saw it and commented. It's cool that they used the 5D II, but I'm wondering what percentage of pro and semi-pro users actually regularly use the video function...idk, I just think it's gimmicky and they should spend the $ on developing other things. A camcorder that takes DSLR lenses, on the other hand...

Originally Posted by scollins

The other option is the older 17-35 f2.8 (which I have.) I really wish that Nikon had made the 16-35 f4 VR an f2.8 instead. Canon has a 16-35 f2.8 (non IS), so Nikon engineers should be able to get that last 1mm and still fit in VR....

As for the 3 lenses, that is all I've got at the moment:
Nikkor 17-35 f2.8
Nikkor 50mm f1.8
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRI

As I'm currently shooting DX, I may add the following at some point:
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 (although I try to avoid DX-only lenses....)
Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 (I'm guessing this will be upgraded to a VR version at some point....)
Nikkor teleconverters (debating 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x....)

I'd also love to have a 300mm f2.8, but they are big bucks. If anyone notices a pattern, it is that I don't want lenses any slower than f2.8, and any zoom has to be a constant aperture. No more variable aperture slow zooms for me!


If I step up to full frame and could only have 3 lenses, they'd be:
Nikkor 14-24 f2.8
Nikkor 24-70 f2.8
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8

24-70 f/2.8