DSLRUsers.com

Hi Everybody .
This being my first post Iwould appreciate your help and advice ,and having spent few hours reading manyother posts I'm sure I'll get it.
What would you recomend as the three most useful lenses to cover most
average photographic situations. I know I'm asking too much,and I know
there are alot of variations , and interpretations to this theme, but I have to start from somewhere,...of course I already started saving money

NeoN .

Neon, very hard to respond to this question without a clue of what you are photographing but the two lenses which represent best value for money are the kit lens (as part of the kit) and 50mm 1.8. Both are good lenses and represent excellent value for money

Neon,

As Glen has wrote above, it is very hard for people to guess what lens is best for you unless we have an idea on what you like shooting. I would suggest getting a kit lens first and then spending a few month with that lens. Once you have done that you can see for yourself what you other lense you require ontop of your kit lens eg - you may find that your kit lens does not go wide/long enough, you may find that you are shooting alot of low light sceens etc

My own personal 3 lens would be:

12-24mm for landscapes and perspective
kit lens or 24-120mmVR
80-400mmVR

But as Glen has already said it depends on what you want to shoot - for example macro

And also depend on how deep your pocket is?

not a macro person myself, more towards sports.

18-35mm
24-120mm
80-200mm

but seriously why 3 lenses? if you don't know what you want your going to have too many lenses collecting dust in the cupboard. why use what you have until the lust bug bites you.

If I had really deep pockets this will be one of them.

depends on your style, but...

Budget: 18-70 kit
70-300 g
50 1.8

above budget: 24-120 vr
70-200 2.8 vr
50 1.4 or 10.5 dx

but thats just me

Andy

Huynhie, one of those sold recently on Ebay for $1600 in Sydney

Glen wrote:Huynhie, one of those sold recently on Ebay for $1600 in Sydney

Glen I saw that listing on ebay, that is why I said if my pockets were deep this would be on the list

well don't go crazy and do this though

The three most important lenses... ever...


1) The one on the camera..
2) The one in your camera bag..
3) The one you left at home because you thought you wouldn't need it.

Seriously though... the kit i'm wanting to have for myself in a months time is this.

50mm 1.8
18-70 Kit lens
80-400VR

As far as I can see, that'll cover most of what I want to shoot, the only hole that I know of being that there isn't a dedicated Macro lens there...

personally
12-24mm
18-70mm
80-400mm

if you gave me one more an 85 1.4

i think it depends too much on what you want to do to just give a generic list

probably the most versitile would be something like 18-70mm 80-400mm and a 50 1.4 85 1.4 for low light portraits stuff

Personally I'd pick the

24-120VR
50 F1.8
70 - 200 or 80 - 400 budget permitting.

Also budget permitting the only change i'd make if i shot more landscapes than portraits would be no fifty 50mm :

12 - 24DX
instead.

Thank's everybody for your suggestions, and since I don't want to upset anybody,I came to the conclusion that I NEED at least FOUR lenses,

My choice of lenses are:

12-24mm
18-70mm
24-120 mm VR
80-400 mm VR
However on checking their prices,from different places,I came to the sad conclusion that my pocket is not as deep as Birddogs
and decided that the 24-120mmVR is the most versatile to start with.
Hopefully my Lotto numbers will come up soon,and I might even include
a Macro Lens.
Talking to you guy's, I discover I need more and more things.
We live in very interesting times( chinese proverb)

NeoN

The 2 in your eyes and the 1 on the camera.

if you have the 12-24 and the 24-120 the 18-70 may be some what redundant or the 24-120 may be redundant depending on your shooting i'd personally go with the 18-70 but alot of people like the 24-120, just wondering on your reasoning for both?

hmmm, being a MOSTLY portraiture and wedding photog (and the occasional landscape and other bits and pieces)...I think the 3 most important lenses would have to be:

1. The kit lens (extraordinary value for money and a good basic lens)
2. 50mm 1.4 (a little exy but worth every cent, I love this lens)
3. Hmm....17-55 too, I don't have this lense but a very good all round lens!

and my other lusts are:
70-200VR
24-120VR
and obviously that beautiful lense 200-400VR (doubt I will ever own this one but it is nice to dream!).

Nodabs

I can see your point regarding the 18-70mm, being redundant
or the 24-120mm being redundant.
I surpose the only explanation is that it's nice to have all length's covered,
that is being able to pick up the right lens for the right job.
However at the end of the day, having read other suggestions from
other members, I decided that the 24-120mm will be the most versitile
for the time being, followed by 12-24mm,much later I think.....!

NeoN

The 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor is a beautiful lens and very versatile: covers portrait and macro work. I've managed to get some great macro shots with it... it's well worth considering if your interests run to these fields. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?ca ... uctNr=1987

Seriously lusting after the 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor at the moment: as a portrait lens it's simply the best.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?ca ... uctNr=1931

timbo wrote:The 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor is a beautiful lens and very versatile: covers portrait and macro work. I've managed to get some great macro shots with it... it's well worth considering if your interests run to these fields. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?ca ... uctNr=1987

Seriously lusting after the 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor at the moment: as a portrait lens it's simply the best.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?ca ... uctNr=1931

timbo,
You have a good taste! How can I argue with you about the 85/1.4?

My choice:

12-24 f/4
17-55 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 VR

But present I only have the kit lens...

Link.

Neon don't rule out the 70-200 VR AFS 2.8. Fast telephoto lens with very fast auto focus (AFS), great quality. There is a reason there is a shortage around the world of this lens (not just because everyone is buying it from Birddy at a good price). You can add a teleconverter to it

Here is a review of it

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/AFS_VR/afs_vr.html

or

http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

The general rule is...it is better to have only 1 very sharp, fast lens than a bag full of slow, cheap lenses. Every professional photographer would totally agree with this approach.

I cannot limit it to just 3, mainly because I enjoy using primes so much. 99% of what I currently do could probably be covered by three primes (curently doing it with two). I seem to be a rare breed these days. I have absolutely no interest in zooms.
If I had to choose only 3 lenses, I would say 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 70-200VR (future wish list). The 70-200 is in there to cover reality (and the other 1%)... sometimes I need something longer. I currently use (rarely) a 70-300 for that.

I also want the 85/1.4. Legs first, legs first, legs first.....

My ultimate plan for the kit that goes everywhere with me: 14 or 16mm (non-fisheye), 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 70-200VR, Sorry, that is 5.

When all is done, I will have 3 redundant lenses; kit, 70-300 and 50/1.8. If I ever sold my d70, these lenses would go with it. I also have a micro lens which does not see enough use to carry everywhere with me.

Good luck making sense of that

Cheers

Matt

MattC, pissing myself laughing at your post, no disrespect intended "I have absolutely no interest in zooms. If I had to choose only 3 lenses..... 70-200VR"


I understand your feelings, I use both and it is hard to resist the 70-200, it really is a nice lens. Your post made me laugh mainly because of the absolutely followed by the zoom.

Glen wrote:MattC, pissing myself laughing at your post, no disrespect intended "I have absolutely no interest in zooms. If I had to choose only 3 lenses..... 70-200VR"


I understand your feelings, I use both and it is hard to resist the 70-200, it really is a nice lens. Your post made me laugh mainly because of the absolutely followed by the zoom.

He wrote to me while ago in his email and make me laugh too.

Birddog, forgot to mention I was looking through Pixspot the other day and saw your shot "seperation 1" from Blues Point. Really liked that, thought that was a great capture of a fleeting moment.

Glen wrote:Birddog, forgot to mention I was looking through Pixspot the other day and saw your shot "seperation 1" from Blues Point. Really liked that, thought that was a great capture of a fleeting moment.

I liked the way they parted!

Three (3) lenses I have and it is a tough call, but here I go:

Nikon

AF-S 12-24mm f/4
AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC-17EII

And just missed out:

Sigma

APO 150mm f/2.8 Macro EX DG

Cheers,

fozzie wrote:Three (3) lenses I have and it is a tough call, but here I go:

Nikon

AF-S 12-24mm f/4
AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC-17EII

And just missed out:

Sigma

APO 150mm f/2.8 Macro EX DG

Cheers,

fozzie,
I thought you have the 24-120VR not the 17-55Dx!

Birddog,

Birddog114 wrote:

fozzie wrote:Three (3) lenses I have and it is a tough call, but here I go:

Nikon

AF-S 12-24mm f/4
AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC-17EII

And just missed out:

Sigma

APO 150mm f/2.8 Macro EX DG

Cheers,

fozzie,
I thought you have the 24-120VR not the 17-55Dx!

I do have the 24-120VR. As I said above, it is a tough call.



Cheers,

Birddog114 wrote:

Glen wrote:MattC, pissing myself laughing at your post, no disrespect intended "I have absolutely no interest in zooms. If I had to choose only 3 lenses..... 70-200VR"


I understand your feelings, I use both and it is hard to resist the 70-200, it really is a nice lens. Your post made me laugh mainly because of the absolutely followed by the zoom.

He wrote to me while ago in his email and make me laugh too.

Yep, it is an absolute contradiction! Glad you could get a chuckle from it. As I said, "good luck if you can work it out". 3 lenses is not enough. Ultimately I will want 5 and no doubt that number will increase.

Most of my shooting is done below 100mm, when I get out I usually have the 50mm on the camera and the 24mm in my pocket, but I recognise that in the future I am going to need something longer. It is really a reality check. I do not really want to fork out the thousands for longer primes that will be under utilised.

Cheers

Matt PS Here is a couple of reasons for choosing the 70-200 VR over a prime:
AF-S 200 F2G VR IF-ED LENS Maxwells price $10,295 !!!
AF-S 300 F2.8G VR IF-ED LENS Maxwells price $10,660 !!!
Even with discounts these are still very price lenses that I would, at best, only use occasionally.
AF-S 300 F4D IF-ED is more attractive at $2699

i currently have :
60mm macro, great for portraits
18-70 kit lens, a great allrounder
70-200vr, a fantasticly sharp lens... GET ONE !!!!!!
70-300 ed, dont use because of the 200vr

but...... i lust after the 200-400 vr

cheers rob btw birddog did you get rid of those 200-400 vr's yet ??

Well

At the risk of being repetitious.

12-24 DX
24-120 VR
70-200 VR + TC 1.7

I have the first 2 and will have the third in the next week or so courtesy of Poon & birddog. Now I will never, ever, need another lens!!!!

Can we repeat that back to you later Stubbsy?






ps what do use for macro

pps what do use for a low light lens?

Glen wrote:Can we repeat that back to you later Stubbsy?

ps what do use for macro

pps what do use for a low light lens?

1. No you can't, but I'm sure you will anyway

2. Evil angel Glen - begone. Good angel says I can use my 70-200 to get simulated macros and a torch for low light

Hey Glen, Stubbsy did use the word "need". Nothing about "want". I suspect that eventually he will "want" other lenses.

Cheers

Matt

Fair point Matt, I would imagine he is already thinking how good his teleconverter would look behind a 200-400 VR

Now I will never, ever, need another lens!!!!
_________________
stubbsy never say never !!!!!!!!! thats what i said to my partner when i got my 70-200vr now i lust after the 200-400vr i keep getting " you said you wouldnt need another lens after the last one you bought ! " .............she doesnt understand

cheers rob

I'm with Mattk on this one.

I good fast lens on the camera, and the two in your head.

robw25 wrote:i currently have :
60mm macro, great for portraits
18-70 kit lens, a great allrounder
70-200vr, a fantasticly sharp lens... GET ONE !!!!!!
70-300 ed, dont use because of the 200vr

but...... i lust after the 200-400 vr

cheers rob btw birddog did you get rid of those 200-400 vr's yet ??

They're gone! Last ones was on Monday!couldn't wait for you! cos you're building a house

stubbsy wrote:

Glen wrote:Can we repeat that back to you later Stubbsy?

ps what do use for macro

pps what do use for a low light lens?

1. No you can't, but I'm sure you will anyway

2. Evil angel Glen - begone. Good angel says I can use my 70-200 to get simulated macros and a torch for low light

Stubbsy,
Once you come to the meet next week, I'll let you try the Wimberley Sidekick and the Canon 500D 77mm.

Nobody seems to have, as yet, commented on the complete fallacy - fantasy even - of the subject line of this thread.

As if just three lenses can even be satisfactory!

hrumph!

gstark wrote:Nobody seems to have, as yet, commented on the complete fallacy - fantasy even - of the subject line of this thread.

As if just three lenses can even be satisfactory!

hrumph!

Gary,
Are you flying out HNL tonight?

Birddog,

Yes; around 10:30pm local time, which is about 12 hours from now.

gstark wrote:Birddog,

Yes; around 10:30pm local time, which is about 12 hours from now.

Here's the theme:

"This is your Captain
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome aboard Canadian Flt. No:
Sitback, relax and enjoy your flight back home."

We're thinking of stopping by the local soup kitchen on the way to the airport. The food from there can't be worse than what we were served on the way over.

I still can't figure out if the yellow stuff on the outside of what they told us was chicken was breadcrumbs, or feathers. It certainly didn't taste remotely like any chook I've ever had.

gstark wrote:We're thinking of stopping by the local soup kitchen on the way to the airport. The food from there can't be worse than what we were served on the way over.

I still can't figure out if the yellow stuff on the outside of what they told us was chicken was breadcrumbs, or feathers. It certainly didn't taste remotely like any chook I've ever had.

You're right! perhaps not real chicken, imitation ingredients! you can pack some food to go with you as well!

Gary,

gstark wrote:We're thinking of stopping by the local soup kitchen on the way to the airport. The food from there can't be worse than what we were served on the way over.

I still can't figure out if the yellow stuff on the outside of what they told us was chicken was breadcrumbs, or feathers. It certainly didn't taste remotely like any chook I've ever had.

Go to KFC at the airport, order 30 packs of take away 'CHICKEN', pack them into a cardboard carton, and sell on board Air Canada flight back to Sydney. That way you know what you are getting and make some money on the side - for lens lust .


Have a good flight back to 'OZ'.


Cheerio,