If you could only have 2 lenses what would they be

My favorite lens to use with both aps-c and full frame is 24LII. Very practical on the crop and i like having at least a 24 wide option. A second lens i would take a 135. This is usally what i shoot with (plus a 50)

Hey tommy, we shoot the exact same prime FLs! I love the 24/50/135 spread, and to boot the 135 and a TC is very good so you can stretch that long end.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16694895
Hey tommy, we shoot the exact same prime FLs! I love the 24/50/135 spread, and to boot the 135 and a TC is very good so you can stretch that long end.

I plan to get a 1.4 at some point to also use with my 400 when i get a body that will autofocus at f8. But 24/50/135 is outstanding especially with both formats. I use the 24 on crop alot. 135 on ff.

Agree, 24 on crop is an excellent walk around.

35 f/2 IS (normal on crop, wide on FF)
70-200 f/2.8 IS II (all around on FF, long enough on crop)

TIGR wrote in post #16694147
I use a 24L II and a 70-200L II and it's a powerful combination:

· That 24-320mm total range is excellent across many uses and the 38-70mm gap perfectly misses the focal lengths I personally find the most boring. I wouldn't be satisfied with anything over 24mm being the widest I could go or anything under 300mm being the most telephoto.

· Having at least one f/1.4 or faster lens at a good walkaround focal length is important to me as I frequently shoot low-light events where I can't or prefer not to use flash. The 70-200/2.8 is at times too slow, but the image quality is superb and it's a fair compromise over paying $7k for (and lugging around) an 85/1.4 and 200/2.

· That said, my 85/1.4 is almost certainly my favorite lens. It just so happens that for a photog restricted to two lenses, it'd be the most sensible one to ditch.

Edit to add: if you asked for a three-lens lineup for FF + crop, my unhesitating answer, provided the budget for it, would be 24L II, Sigma 85/1.4, and 200 f/2L.

Great feedback thanks, I do quite like the idea of having a f1.4 lens and would probably need to go for the 24 just to get the width I'm after

DreDaze wrote in post #16694725
if you're after something that gives you the range of your 17-50mm, but is usable on FF, then you're limited in options...you've got the 17-40mm, 16-35mm, tokina 16-28mm...but not much more than that...maybe time to sell the 7d?

I love the 7d for shooting sport, the autofocus and the extra reach when mounted on the 70-200 is great,

It's such a tough decision, a used 24-105 is around about where my budget sits ($700-800 NZ) and maybe once I have that I could go down the path of a 24 or 35 f1.4 once I have saved a few more dollars, the 24-70 f2.8 is too expensive


is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 any good?

Your 70~200 II and either the more economic 24~105 or IQ of the 70~200 which would be the 24~70 II

Down the road I would consider the Canon 15~85 for your crop, as it will take you much wider than either of the 24's

To sum it up either 24~105 or 24~70II to match up with the 70~200 II

and the 15~85 for your cropper.

That's how I roll !!

Tc202 wrote in post #16693191
24-70 2.8 ii and 600mm f4 is ii

ed rader wrote in post #16694541
24-70L II + 200-400L -- and I already have half of my fantasy combo !

This!! Pretty much what I need for what I shoot, 24-70 II and either 600 II or 200-400.

24-70 for landscape, walkaround lens, and big white tele for wildlife/birding.

Best duo would be
1) Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
2) Canon 600mm f4 is ii

Cheers !!!

If I were to sell everything else, I'd leave my 35L and my Rokinon 85mm.

This.

Talley wrote in post #16694235
IF I had to limit myself to 2 lenses...

35 1.4
70-200 2.8 II

nouf said.

Milutiche wrote in post #16692862
If you owned a APS-C and a Full Frame Body and you could only on 2 lenses, which 2 lenses would you own

Cheers
Jason

This is a very, very tough question for me to answer. Because I primarily shoot wildlife, I absolutely need a long telephoto. But that leaves me with only one other lens. Sheesh. I guess an 800mm and a 200-400/560mm . . . but that means the widest I can shoot is 200mm. That would suck!

If only the 28-300mm was f4 and had stellar IQ . . .

If only SIgma's 50-150mm f2.8 OS was compatible with full frame . . .

If only Sigma's 300-800mm zoom had stabilization . . .

24-105 and 200-400...

For what I shoot... with the 5D3:
35mm f/2.0 IS USM
24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Terrefic IQ in a relatively light and small package.

Go with one so wide and with something long first, i did that because with wide i can crop to have in standard equivalent, i know if i have only 35mm or 50mm and longer then i will always wishing for so wide lens, but if i have say 24mm or 16mm then i can crop to be nearly 50-70mm, i know it will not be a good idea but cropping to FL you want to have lens for is better that you can't at all shoot at FL you need because you don't have the glass for it, i can crop my 300 to give nearly 600mm or i can use TC on 300, but i am sure if i have 600mm then i can never shoot for 300mm on a distance i can't change, so think to have 2 sides lenses first and later fill the gap in between, in this case 16-35 and 70-200 are the best starter, later add 24-70, believe me, those 3 lenses will cover many many applications until you need a dedicated lenses for certain photograph such as a macro lens or 500/600 for birding for example.

Good luck with your 2 only lenses.