If you could only have 2 lenses

[7CS]

Which 2 would you choose? Was supposed to say Canon in the title, but it got axed because it was in ()

[Petrus]

This depends on the camera and what the lenses would be used for.

Assume a full frame sensor DSLR like D5 or Ds:

- for news photography 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 (big & heavy)
- for travel & hobby 28 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 (or 100 f2) (small, fast)

[Ralph Oshiro]

Full-frame 35mm: 24mm f/2.8 (unless you can afford a faster one), 85mm f/1.8.
x1.5 factor DSLR: 20mm f/2.8 (unless you can afford a faster one), 50mm f/1.4.

[Jeremy Ordan]

If I was limited to just two lenses one would be the 10-20mm Sigma because it is a nice massively wide angle zoom and the other would be the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR or the 18-55 2.8 DX.

Primes are great and I have a rapidly growing collection from 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, & 105mm... Then again, if I can just bring two I'm adding zooms to my bag.

Then again, the 18-70 DX is almost always in my bag.

[Rich Lee]

canon 16-35
sigma 70-200

[7CS]

I got one of the 28-200 lenses as an all purpose lens. it seems to work out for what I do.. Which is nothing professional at this time. But I'd like to expand the possibilities. I shoot with a 30D that I just picked up a few days ago and so far so good, but I haven't had a chance to shoot much. Going up into the mountains this weekend so I'll get a chance to flex it out a bit more.

Thanks for the input!

[dougspice]

The second you upgrade from those crap 28-200s, you'll never be able to use it again. I owned one, once upon a time, a Tamron. I thought it was fine at the time, but no. It was a total piece of shit. Still, nice for travelling on a budget.

Just TWO is pretty hard. Three I could tackle no problem:

17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S
50mm f/1.4
70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S

So I guess I'd pick whatever two of those were appropriate to the conditions. On the other hand I think I could happily shoot with a Summicron 50mm f/2 and no other lens for quite some time.

[MattinSTL]

Only two Canon lenses? Pff... easy.

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef70-200_28lisu_586x225.jpg

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef24-70_28lu_586x225.jpg

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM



If you don't have this much $ to blow then I'd consider the 17-55 USM (not L glass... but adds IS... which isn't as important at the wide end)... I also like the 50mm in F-A-S-T glass... and the 85mm 1.8 for portraits... but if you can afford top of the line zooms at 2.8 then I think you'd be pretty happy overall.

Primes generally gain a little sharpness and improved bokeh... but I think for 95% of the shooters out there a really fast zoom is like sweet sweet candy.

I have a couple of 1.8 primes and some of the shots I take wouldn't even be possible w/o that last bit of light... a 1.4 or 1.2 would be even better.

So it's not like you have bad choices laid out here. My guess is that you might not be able to afford these suggestions anyway or else you wouldn't have posted "only two" as if there's some limitations that weren't specifically disclosed.

The bottom line is that it's impossible to get the best of everything in only two lenses. Without knowing the kind of shooting you do it's hard to make the perfect suggestion. In my opinion the 50mm 1.8 is so cheap that everybody (Canon AND Nikon shooters) has no excuse to be missing this lens from their kit. There WILL be times when absolute glass speed will mean the difference between getting a shot or not... but for the rest of the time the convenience of a zoom might make the difference in your results.

I love that Canon 70-200 though... I would put that really high on your list. You will never meet a person who has used that lens and isn't in love with it.

[Jeremy Ordan]

I agree with Matt's comments regarding primes and I love his choices, but he's missing something super wide. Once you go wide you want to stay wide, hence the Sigma 10-20mm is a great lens (if you find a good copy, with 3rd party lenses there are always some differences). Scharky likes the 12-24 Tokina and that lens is actually sharper than the Sigma (from tests I've seen), but those extra 2mm, especially with the 1.5 crop factor (15-30mm versus 18-36mm) goes a long way in my opinion.

Ultimately the perfect kit, without factoring in primes would be something superwide and something super long. Primes... That depends on what you're shooting and how much control you have. As I've done more studio stuff the speed of the lens matters less because I can add light plus I stop the lens down a lot to increase sharpness. For walk about and capturing certain shots with practical light then fast glass can't be beat.

[7CS]

Thanks for the explanations! I appreciate the comments and will save the pennies for new glass.

[brigadoon]

Canon 35 F1.4
Canon 85 F.1.2

[Nick Larsen]

24-105 f4L IS

How can that not be on everyone's list? Best walkaround lens in existance. While the 24-70L 2.8 is nice, it is significantly heavier and has less range. Feel them both out in a shop somewhere. Also, you get another 35mm on the end, and you trade one f-stop for a possible 3 stops of IS.

After that it's up to you. If you shoot tele stuff, the 70-300IS is amazing for what it costs. If you do more portrait stuff, grab a 50 1.8/1.4 depending on the budget.

[Petrus]

I have used 24-105 f4 and that is the lens I am going to take to Nepal with a D5 this coming November. Just one lens; no dust problems. It is great. Just that for my everyday work it is too slow, I use lenses* full open olla the time, either because there is no light, or for shallow DOF effects.

For my recommendations see the post #2.

*) 24-70 f2.8 and 50 f1.4