What are your Essensial Lenses?

[fooby]

I've recently been paying a lot of attention to what other people shoot with and what they are shooting. I personally feel that between a 17-40mm f4, 50mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8 I could shoot everything I would ever need to shoot. What are your go-to lenses?

 

[SnappingShark]

50mm
24-70mm

 

[thereyoflite]

Minolta 28mm

 

[ruifo]

8mm f/3.5 fisheye
35mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.8
105mm f/2.8 macro
70-200 f/2.8
18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 (for light travel)

Next:
14-24mm f/2.8

 

[PropilotBW]

35mm 1.8.

 

[Overread18 6]

Most if not all my lenses are "go to". The difference is that they are all based upon context of what I want to shoot - each one has a specific situation or use; they only really become more tricky choices when I have to cut things down because of packing or weight. About the only area of "waste" I've got is in macro because I've a few more optional lenses there.

120-300mm OS f2.8 - this and 2*TC is my long range wildlife lens. There's really not much more to say there; its sharp and works well, stopped down with the 2*TC. Granted the big L primes will beat it, but they are also a lot more expensive!

70-200mm f2.8 IS MKII - this and 2*TC is my light longer range setup, but also very capable on its own as a generalist "do anything" lens. 70-200mm is a great range on crop or fullframe (on crop if working close without being able to step back a 50-150mm can be more practical). I've done wildlife to portraits to landscapes, heck with the 2*TC it does some good close up work too (though its a pain to focus handheld like that close up).

MPE 65mm f2.8 macro - my go to for 2:1 or greater macro work - there's no other lens in that range to even do that.

Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro - whilst I've not used mine in a while if I could only have one regular macro lens this would be it; it really only suffers if you're working close up in-doors where you can't always step back for something larger than 1:1. With a 1.4TC its a great combo setup.

Sigma 70mm macro - this is my go-to "Light and small" macro lens for when I'm packing other options, but want something that can work close up as well. It's there purely for weight and size.

Tokina 35mm macro - at present this is my go to for anything under 70mm that I want to take photos of. I'm far more limited in this focal range at present, having only the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 400D as my other option. So this one sees a fair bit of indoor and general shooting use. It's versatile, but not as quick to focus as regular primes in its focal range (as a result of its macro side). Otherwise its a fine little lens that performs well and if I want I can get in really close for some macro shots (although at a practical level at 1:1 its very impractical to use because its very hard to get light into its short working distance).

 

[Derrel]

70-200mm f/2.8 zoom with stabilizer, since 2003. Really, overall the SINGLE most-valuable, most-versatile lens for me,personally. It encompasses the majority of the telephoto lens lengths that I need, most of the time. Similarly, the 70-300 AF-S VR-G Nikkor is a really good lens for day-hikes and stuff. SMaller,lighter, and more telephoto end, also has VR, and carries well. Sooooooo much less bulk than a 70-200/2.8.

35mm f/2. 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. 300mm f/4 AF-S. Nikon TC 14e-II converter. 50mm f/1.8 AF or AF-S. Those are my most reached-for pieces of glass.

 

[e.rose]

When I'm forced to use only my own sh*t...

I have a 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and a 70-200L f/2.8.

When my good friend, who lets me borrow whatever I want, doesn't have a shoot, I steal his 24-70L and just use that and my 70-200.

I really, really, really wanna get a 24-70. But it's expensive. And I don't have the money. And I have a good friend who lets me take it when I want as long as he's not using it. So. That helps me not need to buy one RIGHT NOW.

 

[goodguy]

24-70mm 2.8 for everyday use
70-200mm 2.8 for telezoom
60mm 2.8 for macro

These three are must which I cant do without, to that I added 18-55mm for times I need somethign wider (very rare for me) and 85mm 1.8G when I feel like using it in different occasions.

 

[robbins.photo]

I've recently been paying a lot of attention to what other people shoot with and what they are shooting. I personally feel that between a 17-40mm f4, 50mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8 I could shoot everything I would ever need to shoot. What are your go-to lenses?

In order of most used: 70-200 mm F/2.8, 50 mm 1.8 and then finally 85 mm 1.8, though really the 50 and 85 get almost as much use, it just sort of depends on what I'm shooting.

 

[Derrel]

When I'm forced to use only my own sh*t...

I have a 28mm f/1.8,

Interesting you mentioned that. About two weeks back, The Online Photographer blog site had a guest author who was waxing rhapsodic about how fabulous the Canon 28mm f/1.8 EF lens is, specifically the "way it draws", and the way it transitions from the sharpness zone, to the out of focus zone.

The Online Photographer: A Little Lens Tale

He makes it sound like one of those overlooked gems. I am a lens nut, and when I read comments like THIS one, I try and pay attention. I don't put a lot of stock in MTF charts, or star target tests, but comment s like these? I listen to these:

"My favorite example of this has long been Canon’s EF 28mm ƒ/1.8. It came out almost 20 years ago and is technically none too impressive on 35mm film, never mind digital sensors. Corner sharpness? Forget about it. Color aberrations, coma, etc.—this is not a lens you want to test too closely. And yet to my eyes it had a lovely look, to the point where I bought an APS-C body just to use it. (28mm is too wide for my tastes, while 45mm-e feels about perfect.) That lens, shot fairly close at mid-apertures, still charms me in ways that none of my other Canon lenses do. They’re reliably good, but the 28mm is unreliably great. By that I mean that it doesn't work for every kind of shot, but when it does, it sings."

 

[fooby]

It's really interesting that most of your go-to lenses are telephoto, I'm personally the complete opposite! The most I've ever actually needed to use was the 300mm f2, and that was a very specialist assignment.

 

[e.rose]

When I'm forced to use only my own sh*t...

I have a 28mm f/1.8,

Interesting you mentioned that. About two weeks back, The Online Photographer blog site had a guest author who was waxing rhapsodic about how fabulous the Canon 28mm f/1.8 EF lens is, specifically the "way it draws", and the way it transitions from the sharpness zone, to the out of focus zone.

The Online Photographer: A Little Lens Tale

He makes it sound like one of those overlooked gems. I am a lens nut, and when I read comments like THIS one, I try and pay attention. I don't put a lot of stock in MTF charts, or star target tests, but comment s like these? I listen to these:

"My favorite example of this has long been Canon’s EF 28mm ƒ/1.8. It came out almost 20 years ago and is technically none too impressive on 35mm film, never mind digital sensors. Corner sharpness? Forget about it. Color aberrations, coma, etc.—this is not a lens you want to test too closely. And yet to my eyes it had a lovely look, to the point where I bought an APS-C body just to use it. (28mm is too wide for my tastes, while 45mm-e feels about perfect.) That lens, shot fairly close at mid-apertures, still charms me in ways that none of my other Canon lenses do. They’re reliably good, but the 28mm is unreliably great. By that I mean that it doesn't work for every kind of shot, but when it does, it sings."

That's funny because I like Matt's second version 24-70L way better.

I think it's sharper than my 28mm, personally.

Granted, the 24-70 is an L lens and the 28 isn't. But the 28 isn't as sharp as I'd like it to be. It might also be because I'm generally shooting wider apertures with it, and I don't live in it's "sweet spot". Who knows.

 

[runnah]

I like my 85mm 1.8.

 

[Derrel]

Well, the guy says the lens is NOT that sharp...but it has a lovely transition from the focus zone to the out of focus background, and he likes it on an APS-C Canon body, where it in effect becomes more of a "true normal" lens...so that might be part of the reason. As he mentions, a lot of people value sharpness, but for him, the quality he likes is the way the 28/1.8 "draws the scene"...I suspect that using it wider-open on FF would maybe not yield the same look as on a 1.6x body. I liked his use of the term "unreliably great," which is an interesting way to put it.

Sharpness can be wayyyy overrated; look at the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 formula and the results outta those things...OMG...sharp, yes! But hoooooorible background rendering. Uuuuugly. Triple-bagger ugly. Gag me with a double-line bokeh spoon ugly.

I've heard Canon's 20mm prime is really a great lens, but not many people talk about it.