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

[Derrel]

I'd listed the Nikon 200 millimeter F / 2 vibration reduction lens + 1.4 x + 1.7 x telephoto converters. In terms of focusing speed,focusing accuracy,bokê, and overall image Beauty the 200/2 is without a doubt the best lens I have ever used. When I bought it it was priced at $3999, but the newer version has added about $1,000 to the price in the intervening 12 or 13 years.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon has added the 105 mm f/1.4 , which allows for about the same degree of defocusing in the background come up but with a much smaller, lighter, and more affordable lens.

I owned the previous lens, the 105 mm F2 defocus control model, and it has a different look to its images the new 105 F / 1.4 looks a lot more like the 200 f/2.

 

[480sparky]

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 3984119, member:

Absolutely and unequivocally not. Primes are, in general, sharper, faster and have less optical flaws (distortion, astigmatism, coma.....)

And yet Millions upon millions of fantastic photos are made every year with zoom lenses. It is now possible and quite easy in fact to apply sharpening to photos in post,and it is easily possible to eliminate much distortion,up to the point where Distortion is basically invisible. Astigmatism? I'm not sure I have ever had a photo impacted by that. While Primes maybe a few line pairs per millimeter sharper in some cases it is entirely possible that a modern Zoom lens might be extraordinarily good, as in the case of the above-mentioned Nikon 14 to 24 mm F / 2.8 which is easily better than the previous three or four generations of Nikon wide-angle prime lenses. Also, one zoom lens might easily weigh 1/2 to 1/4 as much as 3 to 5 single focal length lenses of comparable speed

I never stated images taken with zooms are crappy.

Yes, it is possible to correct some of the issues zooms have, but it's hard to use an f/4.5 lens at f/1.8.

 

[Derrel]

And I did not say that you said that images taken with zoom lenses are crappy. I even quoted what you wrote, which was frankly quite misleading and in way, quite useless information.

Again,here you are, implying that zoom lenses will leave one with pictures that are full of problems that one cannot correct for, which is frankly,bulljive.

Your f/4.5 versus f/1.8 is not much of an argument, but it is a nice try at a strawman.

 

[480sparky]

..... I even quoted what you wrote which was frankly quite misleading.

You're more than free to dispute that vicious pack of truths.

 

[Derrel]

LOL...

 

[Derrel]

For anyone who wishes to look up some tests of the Nikon 14 to 24 F 2.8 against 40 to 50 wide-angle prime lenses designed from 1967 to 2004. Actual tests will show that
The zoom lens is actually better than almost every single lens within the focal range from 14 to 24 mm ,that was designed in the decade of the 1960s, 1970s 1980s,1990s, or the early 2000s. As you might know, or might not know, certain design parameters are a key feature of lenses, and the more important design parameters can change depending upon the era . Old prime lenses that were originally designed to perform well on film often do not do particularly well on digital sensors ,especially wide-angle designs. In the lens design field this became particularly apparent as megapixel count got to 10 or 12, and here we are now at 61 megapixels on the new Sony a7r IV. Olympus designed an entire new series of lenses with increased telecentricity, which is of great value when we are trying to capture light rays on a regular array of digital sensors which use pixels not film in granular form applied to an emulsion. A specific case in point would be Nikon's 20,24 and 28 Ai-s series of wide angle lenses, which are only fair performers on Modern digital sensor cameras, and each one is easily bettered by the 14 to 24 F / 2.8 or even' the old and relatively cheap 12 to 24 DX.

 

[JBPhotog]

Nikon has added the 105 mm f/1.4 , which allows for about the same degree of defocusing in the background come up but with a much smaller, lighter, and more affordable lens.

I owned the previous lens, the 105 mm F2 defocus control model, and it has a different look to its images the new 105 F / 1.4 looks a lot more like the 200 f/2.

My first 105 mm was the venerable f2.5 bought back in 1978 and it was my favourite lens for a few decades until the f1.4 showed up.

 

[Derrel]

My first ever brand new Nikon lens was the 105 f/2.5 in the then fairly new AI-S version, which I bought mail order for $179.95 in 1982. I remember that year when I began College, my tuition was $384 for my first term. I still have that very same lens, and around 2002 or so I bought a second example of it, which I used very infrequently until I sold it to a TPF member around 2015.

Here it is a photo of the lens buyer and the newer example of the 105mm lens on the day that he bought the lens from me. We took a day trip up to the Columbia River Gorge, where he tried out the lens. I personally feel that the 105f 2.5 in AI-S is one of the best-focusing and best-handling medium telephoto lenses ever made by any manufacturer. There is somewhat of a difference in handling between the AI and the AIS series lenses. The majority of AIS lenses have a lighter touch to the focusing ring, and a shorter focusing throw between infinity and minimum focusing distance

 

[Original katomi]

It’s interesting to read peeps reactions to having to pick just three lenses.
Somewhere I read about a one lens challenge, you could only use one lens for a day/week whatever that could fun to see the results
I posted before I could not imagen having more than three lenses or what I would need them for, now iam older and more informed lol

 

[JBPhotog]

As a side note, the AI or AI-S version of the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor performs extremely well on digital, worth the money if one is looking for a stunning short tele.

 

[ac12]

For FF/FX - Nikon, there is a difference in what I WANT vs. what I can practically carry (weight)

• 24-70/2.8 or 24-120/4
  
• 70-200/2.8 (f/4 is the practical lens)
• 200-500 (I would never buy it, as I don't use the long end enough to justify the $$$$. Second, the size and weight is too much for me. Beyond 300mm, I switch to the smaller/lighter m4/3)

m4/3 - Olympus

• 12-40/2.8
• 40-150/2.8
• 150-400/4.5

 

[weepete]

Canon 16-35mm f4 L IS
Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L ii
Canon 600mm F4 L

First two for landscapes, last for wildlife.

 

[Derrel]

What lenses one gets depends upon a number of factors, but one of the big ones is budget. A lot of really fine zoom lenses cost $2,500 today, and that is a lot more money then many people are able or willing to spend. Some of the finest lenses in the telephoto category cost 8000 to $12,000, although there are alternatives which Cost Less , but which do not have the same maximum aperture capability. finally there is the type of Photography it to be done, in which for birds and many Sports long telephoto lenses are preferred, whereas for street photography shorter wide-angle lenses are often preferred,and in portraiture many of the lrnses are between 85 and 200 mm in length, and are often non-zoom lenses, such as the highly-regarded Nikon 85 mm F 1.4 or the Canon 85 mm F / 1.2.

Over the past 20 years or so both Canon and Nikon have succeeded in making extremely good quality 70-200 mm f / 2.8 zooms with extremely high Optical quality. These modern top quality zoom lenses have in many cases eliminated the necessity for prime lenses in their focal range .

 

[Strodav]

What lenses one gets depends upon a number of factors, but one of the big ones is budget. A lot of really fine zoom lenses cost $2,500 today, and that is a lot more money then many people are able or willing to spend. Some of the finest lenses in the telephoto category cost 8000 to $12,000, although there are alternatives which Cost Less , but which do not have the same maximum aperture capability. finally there is the type of Photography it to be done, in which for birds and many Sports long telephoto lenses are preferred, whereas for street photography shorter wide-angle lenses are often preferred,and in portraiture many of the lrnses are between 85 and 200 mm in length, and are often non-zoom lenses, such as the highly-regarded Nikon 85 mm F 1.4 or the Canon 85 mm F / 1.2.

Over the past 20 years or so both Canon and Nikon have succeeded in making extremely good quality 70-200 mm f / 2.8 zooms with extremely high Optical quality. These modern top quality zoom lenses have in many cases eliminated the necessity for prime lenses in their focal range .

Buy used to extend your budget. Look at KEH.com, Adorama.com and several others. You can get "professional" glass for 20% to 50% off in excellent condition. I picked up a Nikon 600mm f/4 G, which sells new for about $12,000 for $5,000 and change, with a 2 year warranty. The glass is perfectly clean and it is 100% functional, but the tube and hood have some scrapes and dings. I would never be able to afford that lens new (I really can't afford it used, but birding is my passion, so I figured out how to afford it).