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



## ph0toe (Oct 1, 2019)

A lot of people say the trinity lens comprising of wide angle, medium and telephoto. 

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


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2019)

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.


----------



## dxqcanada (Oct 1, 2019)

Yes.
As an APS-C user, I have both a high IQ wide angle zoom (16-50mm f/2.8) and long focal length zoom (70-400mm) ... the third lens would be, for me, a 150mm macro f/2.8.
For me, this covers everything I shoot ... though I do have a number of other lenses I can't seem to want to get rid of ... but those three are my primary.


----------



## dxqcanada (Oct 1, 2019)

@ph0toe ... what's your reply to your own question?


----------



## jaomul (Oct 2, 2019)

Derrel said:


> 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?


----------



## jaomul (Oct 2, 2019)

For me I'd say a 70-200 f2.8 that has stability for Nikon, maybe that siggy 135mm f1.8 and the Nikon 300mm f4 freznel type light one


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 2, 2019)

Hi yes your 1st post is my lens list when going on holiday and limited on what camera kit I can take
This lenses change with time but it’s much the same each year wide med far 
The current list is sigma 10 20
Canon EFS 17 85 and canon 70 200 f4 non is l series with the option of  a 2 times l series extender
I use a crop sensor canon so the sigma gives me the wide
Without to much distortion, the 17 85  is a nice walk about
And 70 200 gives me the reach


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 2, 2019)

I can't cover all my uses in 10 lenses let alone just 3!

Given the chance to add 3 lenses to my current selection (without having to find the cash or track down a copy)
I might select:
the Canon MPE-65 or perhaps the Laowa 24mm/14 probe lens, (very different extreme macro options)
the Coastal optics 60mm f4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro (a UV lens with very little focus shift)
and round it off with a large format wide angle or (very different) a Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS

Even here adding specialist options to my existing hoard I've gone over the allowance of 3 lens roles!

I regularly shoot: IR, extreme telephoto, extremely low light,  fisheye, macro... in addition to the typical roles a trinity might cover.

The IR shots might be OK with the trinity lenses but many top line modern lenses have hotspot issues, while cheaper or legacy lenses are generally usable.
Reflected UV is something I've tried but not yet got reasonable results with, it definitely needs a specialist lens.


----------



## RVT1K (Oct 2, 2019)

Only three??!!

My Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 is my best and favorite. But I have to say the the 18-105mm kit lens that came with my D7000 would be one of the three. If I had to stick with only three, I think I would also include my ProOptic


----------



## Designer (Oct 2, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> A lot of people say the trinity lens comprising of wide angle, medium and telephoto.
> 
> Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear


Interesting question.

Here is a limited selection from my wish list:

I still need a wide angle, such as the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G.

I would like to get a Nikon Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ai-S for portraiture.

Then, I would take the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR.  for those long shots.  My longest lens now is 300mm.

My wish list does not include any of the so-called "trinity" of zooms.  In fact; only one zoom; the 200-500.  I already own two zooms, and that seems to be enough for now.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 2, 2019)

jaomul said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Well if I were limited to just three lenses my three choices would be the three I listed. I cannot imagine being limited to just three lenses, so I would pick 2 lenses that cover my most used focal lengths, with both of them being zoom lenses and the 200 F2 which doubles as an extraordinary portrait lens and with the converters gives me a choice of three different focal lengths all with a wide maximum aperture value. If I were to buy just one big Glass lens it would be the 200 mm, which with the 1.4 X converter installed is extremely close in performance to a 300 mm f / 2.8.


----------



## ph0toe (Oct 2, 2019)

dxqcanada said:


> @ph0toe ... what's your reply to your own question?



For me, it'll be the
canon 70-200 f/2.8 L Is 3 usm lens
canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L 3 usm lens
canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L 2 usm lens


----------



## Designer (Oct 2, 2019)

I don't think the OP meant that we would be limited to only three lenses.  

The thread title is; "If you could get any three lenses, what would they be, and why?"

I included my reasons in editing my post.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 2, 2019)

The trinity would not be enough for my work.

Now to answer your question, I would get the following three lenses.

1) 400mm f/2.8 L (newest version) - for sports this is practically a must have (at least have a 300mm f/2.8).
2) 70-200mm f/2.8 L version III - for portrait work and for a second camera body for sports.
3) 24-70mm f/2.8 - for portraits and general use, this is a great walk around lens.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 2, 2019)

18-55, 55-200, 300


----------



## Original katomi (Oct 2, 2019)

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 (Oct 2, 2019)

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.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 2, 2019)

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 (Oct 2, 2019)

jaomul said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## jaomul (Oct 3, 2019)

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


----------



## Designer (Oct 3, 2019)

jaomul said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2019)

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.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 3, 2019)

Designer said:


> ph0toe said:
> 
> 
> > Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear
> ...


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 (Oct 3, 2019)

petrochemist said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > ph0toe said:
> ...


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 (Oct 3, 2019)

petrochemist said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > ph0toe said:
> ...



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 (Oct 3, 2019)

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).


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 3, 2019)

Strodav said:


> 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 (Oct 3, 2019)

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 (Oct 3, 2019)

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.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 3, 2019)

178mm Kodak Aero Ektar f/2.5
Nikon 200mm F/2
Nikon 35mm f/1.4

The Aero Ektar for portraits with the 4x5, the 200mm for general portraits on the DSLR and the 35mm for boudoir with the DSLR.


----------



## Designer (Oct 3, 2019)

Most people who responded to this thread assumed the OP meant you could have ONLY THREE lenses, so would the "trinity" be adequate?

Since I was wrong about how to read the title of this thread, I should re-write my answer to whittle my lens collection down to only three total.

1. The AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED
2. The Voightlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SLIS Ai-S (in Nikon F mount)
3. The Nikon Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF 

All three for IQ, however there are others that have at least as good IQ.

I suppose I could exist with just these three, although I would weep at the loss of some of my other lenses.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 3, 2019)

It's pretty tough to beat the Holy Trinity for quality and focal length range,
- 14~24mm F2.8
- 24~70mm F2.8
- 70~200mm F2.8

There are a host of other options depending on your needs but for commercial work the HT fills the bill.


----------



## ph0toe (Oct 3, 2019)

I'm curious why people don't add prime lenses here. Only because with prime lenses, it let you be more creative with the photos as well as having sharper images at low aperture. thoughts?


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 3, 2019)

Zoom lenses also have fixed focal lengths so if one wants the perspective of a 35mm on a 24-70 they simply dial it in. Primes are no more “creative inducing” than zooms and often they are not any better if one shops in the high end of the price range with zooms. One advantage of primes are typically the maximum f-stop such as 1.2 and 1.4 but often the subject may preclude from using them wide open.

One downside of zooms typically points to the shooter, they simply plant their feet and use the zoom range to get the framing. This is poor technique but one can’t really blame the lens.


----------



## ph0toe (Oct 3, 2019)

thanks for enlightening me.

So buying a zoom is always better than a prime? prime is useless if one buys all high end zoom lens?


"One downside of zooms typically points to the shooter, they simply plant their feet and use the zoom range to get the framing. This is poor technique but one can’t really blame the lens."

how should one do it instead?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

If you go online and look at top-flight photos from good photographers you will often find it is quite impossible to tell whether a photo was shot with a single focal length lens or a zoom lens, and that practical test shows the idea that prime lenses lead to better photographs to be a falsehood. Perhaps 40 years ago it was easier to make that generalization, that prime lenses outperform zoom lenses, but I should point out that when it was introduced the Nikon 14 to 24 millimeter F / 2.8 was found to outperform many single focal length wide angle lenses from multiple manufacturers including Canon,Nikon, and Zeiss. As the years have gone by zoom lenses have become bigger and better and now in many cases the performance of top quality zoom lenses is basically virtually indistinguishable from current prime lenses, except in certain extreme situations. But the idea that you will get "better photos" is, I think, overblown and in many cases not true.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 3, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> thanks for enlightening me.
> 
> So buying a zoom is always better than a prime? prime is useless if one buys all high end zoom lens?
> .........?



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


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

True perspective, AKA _perspective_, is determined by camera to subject distance, not by focal length. How far away  the camera is from a subject determines the perspective. Changing the camera-to-subject distance is a critical part of composing a photograph. Perspective is difficult to explain,but suffice to say it is a fundamental issue that has been ignored or which has remained undiscovered by most self-taught people today. Where you stand, or where you put the camera on the tripod, makes a big difference in the final look of the photo. If you just stand in one place and zoom in or zoom out your photos do not look the same as if you were to move the camera closer or farther from the subject, even with or without lens changes.

In today's world of self-taught Photography enthusiasts, certain aspects of The Craft which were once readily understood are not even heard of. Perspective is perhaps one of the most overlooked and misunderstood or misconstrued words in the jargon of photography. You will often hear the mistaken use of the word perspective in the phrases " wide-angle perspective" or telephoto perspective, but both of those phrases are incorrect and a Corruption of the meaning of the word perspective.


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 3, 2019)

What are you measuring? There is no point in using a micrometer if you are building a house.

With extremely few exceptions, the final image quality in the medium of choice will show no distinguishable difference between a prime and zoom. However, there are characteristics unique to each lens that may be preferable to the photographer. As mentioned previously, we are not talking about a consumer grade zoom versus a prime and frankly this is not the OP’s original query.

The question was which three lenses. I own primes as well as pro quality zooms and my clients are none the wiser.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

Back when I still had a full Canon DSLR outfit I owned several prime lenses as well as two Canon brand zooms, the 24 to 105 F4 L USM, and the 70 to 200 F / 2.8 L IS USM. My Canon prime lenses were the 50 mm F / 1.8 the 50mm F/1.4, the 85 m m f 1.8, the 100 mm f/2.8 EF macro oh, the second version, with internal focusing, and both the 135mm f/2.8 variable soft-focus lens, which is actually extremely Sharp which shot at the neutral setting with no soft focus effect dial dialed in oh, and also cannons somewhat legendary 135 mm f/2 L. Even though the 135 millimeter F2 is a quote legendary prime lens telephoto I usually found that the zoom tele performed so well that there was absolutely no need to use the prime lens.

On the other hand Nikon's very large and heavy 200 mm f / 2 VR lens, which I bought in 2006 or 7 and which weighed about 7 lb. Was a somewhat better performer than either my Canon or my Nikon 70 to 200 mm zoom lenses... however we are talking about a lens that is priced at somewhere around 4 to $5,000 depending on age of lens and version. 

Comparing the Nikon 70 to 300 mm f/4.5~5.6 VR, which was priced at around $589 when brand new against the 300 F 2.8AFS Mark II when the zoom lens was shot at 300 mm it was obvious that the 7 pound $4,900 lens was the better performer However that did not stop me from making literally thousands of perfectly good photos with the lighter and smaller and much less costly lens.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

I typically think of prime lenses as being  best at a specific type of task. One Prime lens that I think is extremely good is a 300 mm F / 2.8. This type of lens puts a visual impression on its images.

For most uses however, it is much easier to carry a lighter and smaller lens, even if it does not open as wide. For example a 300 F / 4 is much smaller, lighter, and easy to carry than its big brother the f/ 2.8 which usually weighs about 5 lb more, and which is extremely noticeable in any type of public shooting environment, such as at a festival, School event, etc..


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

[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


----------



## Designer (Oct 3, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> I'm curious why people don't add prime lenses here.


I did.


----------



## Designer (Oct 3, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> thanks for enlightening me.
> 
> So buying a zoom is always better than a prime? prime is useless if one buys all high end zoom lens?
> 
> ...


walk


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

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 (Oct 3, 2019)

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 (Oct 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


> [QUOTE="480sparky, post: 3984119, member:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely and unequivocally not.  Primes are, in general, sharper, faster and have less optical flaws (distortion, astigmatism, coma.....)
> ...



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 (Oct 3, 2019)

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 (Oct 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


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



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


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

LOL...


----------



## Derrel (Oct 3, 2019)

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 (Oct 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2019)

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 (Oct 4, 2019)

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 (Oct 4, 2019)

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 (Oct 4, 2019)

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 (Oct 5, 2019)

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 (Oct 5, 2019)

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 (Oct 5, 2019)

Derrel said:


> 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).


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 5, 2019)

Derrel said:


> 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 .



IMO they haven't eliminated the need for primes though they certainly have reduced it.
One of the reasons is something you raised yourself in the post above. Good primes are very much cheaper than equivalent quality zooms. I can't justify an f/2.8 telephoto zoom, even a mediocre one, but I didn't have to think twice about my 135mm/2.8 primes, or the 85/2.8...

Another factor is the primes can be faster, AFAIK no-one has made a zoom that can reach f/1.2 at 85mm let alone one that's highly regarded, admittedly for portraits f/2.8 is really fast enough at 85mm.
One final advantage is the primes are usually quite a bit lighter, at least if you only need one from the range the zoom gives


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 5, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> I'm curious why people don't add prime lenses here. Only because with prime lenses, it let you be more creative with the photos as well as having sharper images at low aperture. thoughts?



 Mine are all prime. I dislike having zooms as I’ll tend to get more involved with messing with focal length rather than taking the photo. Just not something I enjoy using.


----------



## ebyelyakov (Oct 7, 2019)

24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8
85 f1.4

I could potentially consider 135 f1.8 in lieu of the 85 if I were shooting more outside. And well, if I could legally and for free obtain a 600mm f4 I coud consider it


----------



## Fujidave (Oct 7, 2019)

I use to love having zooms, but after too many years using them I`m now only a Prime person but that`s for me only though.


----------



## StevenW (Oct 8, 2019)

Early on I saved for a 70-200 2.8 and it was my workhorse lens for the work I was doing photographing horse shows.  I got an opportunity a couple of years later to acquire a 28-70 2.8 from a good friend and fellow pro who sadly passed on not long after I bought the lens.  I have a sentimental attachment of course but that lens has turned into a favorite for me and for my wife and partner photographer.  I don't have much call for wider angle work.  The missing piece for me was macro and close focus distance ability.  I was fortunate to be gifted a legacy 105 mm Lester Dine macro lens, originally marketed as a orthodontic specialty lens.  It is totally manual and I love it for tabletop and macro work.  These three lenses really serve me and my needs well.


----------



## johngpt (Oct 8, 2019)

I don't buy lenses anymore, I just carry around fixed focal length cameras that run the gamut from wide to telephoto...
But I suffer from strap burn quite often.


----------



## rbconbautista (Oct 11, 2019)

ph0toe said:


> A lot of people say the trinity lens comprising of wide angle, medium and telephoto.
> 
> Will 3 expensive lens be enough to cover all of your needs? explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear


CANON GUY HERE. THE 3 I WOULD GET IF I COULD AFFORD THEM ARE CANON 70-200 F.28L (telephoto, narrow angle of view), CANON 24-70 F2.8L (has both telephoto and wide angle), AND OFC THE 50MM F1.4 OR THE 50MM F1.2L. BUT F1.4 AND 1.2 IS NOT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE and they still give an amazing shallow DOF. WHAT I NOTICED ABOUT L LENSES IS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO FOCUS AT CLOSER DISTANCES, FOCUS FASTER, AND GENERALLY ARE FASTER LENSES IN TERMS OF APERTURE.


----------



## ph0toe (Oct 11, 2019)

great choices ^

may i ask which of the 3 lens are best for video?


----------



## rbconbautista (Oct 11, 2019)

it’ll prolly be mostly wide angle so a 24-70 f2.8L for vlogging and it’s versatility a 24mm pancake for vlogging cuz it doesn’t add much bulk only once and prolly a 50mm f1.8 for its affordability and versatility


----------



## Terry L (Oct 15, 2019)

Pentax FA Limited lenses.


----------



## marmle (Nov 26, 2019)

Since I am on a limited budget, I am going to be realistic.  At the moment I have just a 18-55mm Nikon kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime.  In addition to the 50mm lens,  I would get a 16-50mm f3.5 and a 70-300mm f4.5 and sell the kit lens,  which is fine for now, but I would like to upgrade at some point,  I would probably stick to buying Nikon lenses too.


----------

