What's Your Ultimate Prime Arsenal?

2 5DIIs
24L
35L
85L
200 2L

Its what I own...

Nice 85L V2

jerbear00 wrote in post #15103874
Recently completed my ideal set! Might add the 17tse or a 400 2.8 in a year or two! If my wife lets me.....

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/57988030@N04/8​060293459/
IMG_0456 by fooseballman69, on Flickr

Mine would more than likely be 35L, 50L, 85L, already got a 100 L Macro and then a 400 f2.8 L. So I'm maybe about £8000 short of my line up. Had I not already got a 70-200 f2.8 IS L MkII there would probably be another couple in my want list, but I'm happy as it is.

24L 85L

Canon 14mm f2.8L II
Canon 35mm f1.4L
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Sigma 85mm f1.4
Canon 135mm f2L
Canon 200mm f2L
Canon 400mm f2.8L
Canon 600mm f4L

heres a little lens porn. Taken with the 35L

I'm no pro and I just shoot for leisure and a blog. Mine would be

28mm f1.8
50mm f1.8 II
85mm 1.8

That's if I only used all primes.

I am working on my arenal

28 ordering soon
50 1.4 Only one so far
85 Next
135 last

My set - built up over quite a while...
OM 16FE, 17 TS-E, Zeiss 21, 25, 28, 35/1.4, 50MP, 100MP and EF 400/4DO.

The set is excellent for landscapes, modest macro and just about everything that interests me. I have a 70-200 for when I need something intermediate.

It can easily be argued that the 28mm Zeiss is entirely redundant but I enjoy the 28 a great deal. Depending on how curved the subject is, it sometimes works better than the 25. I've only had the 25 for a couple of months - in spite of it being exceptional, I'm still deciding whether it can stay.

noisejammer wrote in post #15109336
My set - built up over quite a while...
OM 16FE, 17 TS-E, Zeiss 21, 25, 28, 35/1.4, 50MP, 100MP and EF 400/4DO.

The set is excellent for landscapes, modest macro and just about everything that interests me. I have a 70-200 for when I need something intermediate.

It can easily be argued that the 28mm Zeiss is entirely redundant but I enjoy the 28 a great deal. Depending on how curved the subject is, it sometimes works better than the 25. I've only had the 25 for a couple of months - in spite of it being exceptional, I'm still deciding whether it can stay.

Huh, yeah, I would think that would be a bit more coverage than it's worth in the 16 to 28 mm range, so if you want me to take that 25mm off your hands, happy to give it a good home. Also, what's an OM 16FE?

JAFA wrote in post #15104604
Well, I blame the messenger (me), but the whole idea here was supposed to be more about what focal lengths would be represented in an idealized collection of prime lenses, rather than specific lenses. For the sake of this exercise, we're assuming you could buy an AWESOME prime lens at any focal length, including lengths such as 47 mm or 112.4 mm that don't currently exist. The only constraint is that the more focal lengths you include, the lower quality they become, because you have a fixed amount of money.

So would you rather work with, say, three amazing prime lenses, or ten decent ones? And what focal lengths would you go with in either scenario?

Make sense? Probably not, but thought I'd try to clarify anyway. Thanks to all who've participated already!

A first list would be something along these lines:
15-16 mm fisheye
12-14 mm extreme UWA
17-19 mm UWA
24-28 mm WA
45-50 mm standard
100-110 mm short tele (85 + 135 could replace this)
180-200 mm medium tele
400 mm long tele

Note: I don't mean very short zooms here, but prime lenses in a certain range.

I would want them all to be of excellent quality, IQ- and buildwise. A set like this would cover my needs; I rarely would use anything else. Not only would those get too expensive for me, but also too bothersome to carry around.

Just choosing three is not an option for me. In addition I'd also want a few specialist lenses - it is one of the reasons I went for Canon (TS-E, MP-E). Furthermore, I'd want certain lens apertures as well, mostly relating to fast apertures.

Kind regards, Wim

I'm sorted for primes, though sold my 135L by accident; what a wonderful lens that was. The 14L would be fun, though to be honest with myself it would get used once in a blue moon. So basically a luxury a bit to far for just shy of two grand.

I've got my eyes on the big boys; a 200L f/2.0, and 400L 2.8 II. Anything larger is pointless given I cannot step on a plane.

Imaginary lengths I would love:

65mm,
40mm,
115mm.

That was fun, thanks for letting me play.

little canon wrote in post #15141395
Imaginary lengths I would love:

65mm,
40mm,
115mm.

That was fun, thanks for letting me play.

Hey, Little Canon,
You know, the 40mm isn't just imaginary - it actually exist . . . and it's ridiculously inexpensive!
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …0mm_f_2_8_EF_Pa​ncake.html

Mine was last year:
28 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 100 2.8

This year:
8 3.5 , 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.2, 100 2.8

Addiction has just started.