What 2 lenses to have?

flyrccg · Jun 26, 2007

If you could only have 2 lenses to have, Which would you buy?

I have a Sigma 18-50 2.8 that I'm happy with. I'm not real happy with my with my Sigma 70-300. I had it way back in the old days with my film camera. The camera store lady tried to sell me a huge $2000 Canon 70-200 lens and I just can't do that right now.

I would like to practice taking portraits with the new lens.

Chris

JIP · Jun 26, 2007

Well one of them I alread have it's in my sig the 70-200VR the othr would be the 17-55 2.8.. Now if you are talking about dream lenses........

table1349 · Jun 26, 2007

This is not going to make you happy with price, but if you could only have two lense for a Canon I would have to say it would have to be the 24-70mm f2.8L and the 70-200mm f2.8L. Covers the most useable range and both are amazingly sharp pieces of glass. Besides whats $3500,00 dollars. It's only money right?

flyrccg · Jun 26, 2007

She also showed me a 70-200 f/4 for $1200. I just wonder how big of a difference that lens would be. It is a lot smaller and lighter to handle than the 2.8. I think the 2.8 would be a little hard to handle after about 5 min.

DeepSpring · Jun 26, 2007

flyrccg said:
She also showed me a 70-200 f/4 for $1200. I just wonder how big of a difference that lens would be. It is a lot smaller and lighter to handle than the 2.8. I think the 2.8 would be a little hard to handle after about 5 min.

I really hope you mean IS version. The normal 70-200f/4 L can be found used for about $450

PhotoPhoenix · Jun 26, 2007

17-85 and a 70-200

that seems pretty standard.

table1349 · Jun 26, 2007

flyrccg said:
She also showed me a 70-200 f/4 for $1200. I just wonder how big of a difference that lens would be. It is a lot smaller and lighter to handle than the 2.8. I think the 2.8 would be a little hard to handle after about 5 min.

I think that this question could be answered a little better if you would post the maxium amount of money you can or are willing to spend. The suggestion that I made earlier includes two of the finest pieces of glass that Canon makes and covers a wide range. Around $3500 is what the two would cost. Pretty pricey.

jstuedle · Jun 26, 2007

gryphonslair99 said:
This is not going to make you happy with price, but if you could only have two lense for a Canon I would have to say it would have to be the 24-70mm f2.8L and the 70-200mm f2.8L. Covers the most useable range and both are amazingly sharp pieces of glass. Besides whats $3500,00 dollars. It's only money right?

Nikon has the same lenses in Nikkor versions, still top shelf. The 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S ED-IF is around 1,350 and the 70-200 f/2.8 G-AF-S ED-IF runs around 1,625 both at B&H. Not cheap, but you can't go wrong with these two if you could only have 2 in your bag. I would add the 14 f/2.8 and have a heck of a kit.

tr0gd0o0r · Jun 26, 2007

While the weight and size of the 70-200 f2.8 seems daunting, you will get used to it fairly quickly.

panocho · Jun 27, 2007

I would always make a 50mm being one of the two. That's the joy of photography! -then probably some "reasonable" zoom (?)...

MikeR · Jun 27, 2007

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 USM (non-IS) The Tamron replaced my kit lens and cost under $450. The Canon replaced a Tamron 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 LD w/macro and the cost was $1140. The Tamron was a nice lens but the Canon is awesome.

EOS_JD · Jun 27, 2007

70-200 f2.8L IS
+
17-55 f2.8IS (I have the 24-105 f4L IS and love that too though)

What about a fast prime..... this you will need/want too..... Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a great choice.

flyrccg · Jun 27, 2007

How big of a deal is the IS on a lens?
$ is always an issue, but I could save for a year or sell one of my kids.

jstuedle · Jun 27, 2007

panocho said:
I would always make a 50mm being one of the two. That's the joy of photography! -then probably some "reasonable" zoom (?)...

By reasonable I presume you refer to light and inexpensive. Thats fine if that is what is important to you. Long ago, I thought that the body was where I should spend my money and got some cheaper glass. This was in my early film days. The only good Nikkor glass I owned was a new 45mm GN f/2.8 for my flash work, and a new 50mm f/1.2. My zooms were Vivitar series one. They weren't bad lenses, but I was disappointed with the shots I got compared to the Nikkor glass. Now that we shoot digital, the body is every bit as much a place to expend the max you can afford, then do the same on your glass. Now it's a combination of glass and sensor that will make or break an image. So, my point is after all this verbiage, Get the best body you can afford and a good 50mm to start. Let your legs be your zoom. Then save up for the best and fastest glass you can possibly afford. The extra weight of the better glass is well worth the minor sacrifice you will be making in carrying it. Your image will thank you, and the pictures will be better too. :lol: