If you could get any 3 lens, what would they be and why?

[Original katomi]

The funny thing is.
When I first started with the canon 1100d I could not imagen what I would do with more than three lenses.

 

[Strodav]

The trinity - no ands or ifs about it. 12(14)-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8. These 3 are so popular Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron all make excellent versions. I am invested in Nikon so I am not familiar with Canon, but I would be surprised if they didn't make equivalents.

 

[480sparky38 37]

Why bother with three lenses? If money was not an issue, I'd get the 6-1500 f/0.8 pancake. Not the old model that used 58mm filters.... the new one with 49mm.

My 'trinity' is an older Nikkor 17-35/2.8 D, plus newer 28-300 and 200-500 G lenses.

 

[Derrel]

My vote would be in Nikon a 24 to 70mm 2.8 afs, the newest 70-200 F / 2.8 zoom lens, and a lens that I sold off a couple years ago, the 200mm F2 with vibration reduction and two telephoto converters, the 1.4 X and the 1.7 x.

Have you had a change of heart on f2.8 zooms?

Not too much of a change of heart, but the post asked us to choose just three.

 

[jaomul]

I think I misunderstood the thread, I picked 3 to add onto my existing set..... Greedy me

 

[Designer]

I think I misunderstood the thread, I picked 3 to add onto my existing set..... Greedy me

That's how I understood the title of the thread. I picked three off my wish list.

 

[Designer]

Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear

No. The cost of the lenses is irrelevant to me.

 

[smoke665]

If I were to get these three, I'd probably have to sell off most of my others anyhow. From the Pentax Star series the new FA 50mm 1.4, and the FA 70-200mm 2.8, and from an earlier series the FA 150-450mm 4.5- 5.6.

 

[petrochemist115 140]

Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear

No. The cost of the lenses is irrelevant to me.

I'm sure it's not completely irrelevant - a relatively minor factor in your lens purchases perhaps.
There are lenses that sell for hundreds of thousands. Each of us has a limit on how much we can spend, and quite often a considerably lower limit on how much a particular improvement is worth to us.
If two lenses were somehow the same in EVERY measurable and subjective way except price & weight, would you pay £1000 more for the lighter lens? If the weight difference was dramatic enough you might, after all a lens you can't move is of little use, but to save only 1oz it's somewhat unlikely.

Price is a big factor in what I will buy, but I will sometimes splash out over my normal limits to gain an ability my previous lenses don't have. Lenses under £20 might be brought on an impulse (and sometimes regretted 20 minutes later).

 

[Designer]

Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear

No. The cost of the lenses is irrelevant to me.

I'm sure it's not completely irrelevant -

Price is a big factor in what I will buy, ..

Of course cost is a factor, but the OP intimated that since they cost a lot, they should be adequate for some people. This is typical of most newbies (thread was posted in the Beyond the Basics forum) in that they will often assume that focal length is the main attribute of any lens. Zoom lenses therefore attract the most interest.

My wish list remains unfulfilled simply because of cost. No other reason is relevant to my decisions about if or when to purchase any of them.

The question was not clearly written, IMO.

 

[Strodav]

Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear

No. The cost of the lenses is irrelevant to me.

I'm sure it's not completely irrelevant - a relatively minor factor in your lens purchases perhaps.
There are lenses that sell for hundreds of thousands. Each of us has a limit on how much we can spend, and quite often a considerably lower limit on how much a particular improvement is worth to us.
If two lenses were somehow the same in EVERY measurable and subjective way except price & weight, would you pay £1000 more for the lighter lens? If the weight difference was dramatic enough you might, after all a lens you can't move is of little use, but to save only 1oz it's somewhat unlikely.

Price is a big factor in what I will buy, but I will sometimes splash out over my normal limits to gain an ability my previous lenses don't have. Lenses under £20 might be brought on an impulse (and sometimes regretted 20 minutes later).

I think I get your point, but in general, faster means heavier as the front lens must be physically larger to gather more light, higher IQ means more and higher priced components. So I am having a hard time with your premise that two lenses could be the same in every measurable way except price and weight. The better lens (IQ) will almost always be heavier and more expensive. I have bought several used lenses from KEH and Adorama from 20% to 50% off new trying to get the most out of my retirement income. On a fixed income, it's a matter of saving for more time before buying.

 

[stk]

I would want to have Nikon 20 mm f/1.8 S, Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 S, Nikon 85 mm f/1.8 S and Nikon 500 mm f/5.6 PF together with the 24 - 70 f/2.8 S and 70 - 200 f/2.8 S.

Some of these are however not yet released, most are out of my budget and the question was if I could only have 3 lenses...

As of today I only have 3 lenses (for my main camera). That's the 24 - 70/4 S, 50/1.8 S and AF-S 70 - 300. My plan is to sell the 24 - 70 and buy the 85 mm and the 20 mm as they become available, so I guess that's my answer: 20 mm, 50 mm and 85 mm (and a cheap tele zoom).

 

[petrochemist115 140]

I think I get your point, but in general, faster means heavier as the front lens must be physically larger to gather more light, higher IQ means more and higher priced components. So I am having a hard time with your premise that two lenses could be the same in every measurable way except price and weight. The better lens (IQ) will almost always be heavier and more expensive. I have bought several used lenses from KEH and Adorama from 20% to 50% off new trying to get the most out of my retirement income. On a fixed income, it's a matter of saving for more time before buying.

Yes it's most unlikely, but the same lens design could easily be made with different materials for the body, making it lighter without changing it optically. Most often when this happens it's a case of replacing metal with plastic, and tends to be reflected with a lower price, but other materials could be used that do not have the feeling of poorer quality, lens barrels from magnesium allows perhaps...

More light does NOT equate to better IQ. Indeed faster lenses are more prone to aberrations, so need much more complex optical systems to match the IQ of slower lenses. My wife would say I have far too many lenses (not a concept I understand) and among them I have many examples where a lighter lens has better IQ than an equivalent heavier one.
A good example from among the manual focus 50mm primes from 35mm film models : The Pentacon 50/1.8 weighs around 250g, while the Pentax M50/1.7 is only 165g. The Pentax clearly has better IQ (not just with my examples). In fact it's the flaws in the Pentacon that sometimes makes it interesting to shoot.

If your lenses have been brought new @ upto 50% off then you've paid a lot more per lenses than I have for most of mine. Only about 2% of my lenses have been over £200. Having a young family means I too have to be careful spend large amounts.

 

[Braineack]

I wouldn't mind the 35mm 1.4, 58mm 1.4, and 105mm 1.4

But then I wouldn't mind the 14-24mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8

 

[Derrel]

One's current shooting state, meaning the type of pictures one likes to take, or where one lives or works or shoots the majority of his or her photos, often determines what lenses are most useful or most desired. for example to a parent with a young child involved in Indoor Sports fast Sports-type lenses are often very useful. for a birding enthusiasts, focal length and lens speed become important factors. For a person who is interested in portraiture, specialty lenses are often very useful. Some people want a lightweight kit some people want focal length flexibility,some people love zoom lenses, while other people eschew them and prefer single focal length or prime lenses. In the internet era the idea of a trinity of Nikon or Canon zoom lenses was born. I never heard of the so-called Trinity until around 2001 or so, perhaps it was a bit later, after internet photography forums and websites and blogs began to exert their influence. Noted Nikon expert Thom Hogan used to have an excellent article entitled "Rational Lens Kits" or something very similar. Perhaps he still has it on his various sites.