If you could only have 2 lenses what would they be

The answer depends so much on what you shoot and how much money you want to tie up in camera equipment. In my case, I have another expensive hobby so I'm not going to be buying any $5000.00 lens. Back in the day, I shot everythng with an 85mm lens. And I mean EVERYTHING! And I never really felt that I needed another lens. My primary interest was shooting dance, both on stage and in rehearsals, other than that it was a grab bag. People, dogs, landscapes, cityscapes etc. I was working on my first job and didn't have a lot of money so I made do. And that Nikon 1.8 met the challenge. Now I'm 83, have a couple of Canon Digitals and a half dozen lens. Am I a better photographer? Not IMHO! And I don't have as much fun. I guess that's one of the widely trumpeted benefits of old age: less skill and less fun! But I still muddle along. <g>

On crop: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Full frame: 24-70 and 70-200

Being a sports guy, I got to go 400 2.8 on the crop (preferably 1DIV) and 70-200 on the full frame.

16-35 II and 70-200 II most likely.

Invertalon wrote in post #16695960
16-35 II and 70-200 II most likely.

+1

This is what i will start with if it was me.

canon 17-40/4 and 24-105/4 i own both the 7d and 5d-3 these two lenses seem to work on these two cameras,even though they overlap a little i don't mind,looking to add a 70-200/2.8-2 very soon as needed!

I guess if I had to cut back to two, I'd take 1 24-105 and a 70-300. I'm not shooting as much anymore and with a 1.4 extender, these should do me. Or I might just go with one, maybe a 28-135. I could probably get along with that.

Wow, what a tough one. I like the people saying 16-35, but i also like the 24-70 thought as the second lens.

As much as I like my 24-105, I'll get rid of it when I get the funds ready for a 24-70. So far, the only thing I wished I had a wider lens for was when I was trying to shoot the buildings on the strip in Vegas. Does that mean I'd want a TS-E 17 or 24 though?

It is good to see these kind of threads, decisions about 1 or 2 lenses when fund is not sufficient and we have to decide wisely, don't you all hate to be in this situation where you have to choose 1-2 lenses out of many great lenses out there?

And how funny that you will never see all members are going to choose exact the same 2 lenses, human nature to be different.

Well, because i know i can't choose 1 or 2 i ended up to buy many so i will never be in that situation, i know not all can do that, but i wasn't rich either to get them all at once, but when i got them all i was always thinking wisely when i choose them one by one.

So again, the best 3 zooms out there are: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, for the full frame or even for the crop, then what comes after those are lenses very very good as well, and i can mention them as: 10-22, 24-105, 17-55, 70-300, and 100-400.

I had 10-22[and still i have it] but now i think i will never use it because i use FF and pro bodies that can't take 10-22 directly, same mistake will happen if i bought 17-55, but i did bought L lenses and they live until now on all bodies, i feel happy that i bought something for future before i figure out that i will go FF or 1.3x bodies path, so that i keep telling this here to make people avoid mistakes, and if many of you buy cheap lenses of EF-s and you sell it again good reasonable price to fund another lens then you are all lucky, because here in my country, once i buy something then i have to forget to get it at very good price, and this making me to think why i did a mistake to buy something that i will get rid of it later, but this can happen even for those L glasses, but L glasses always have a big luck to stay longer than EF-s lenses, and also those more expensive fast L will live longer than those slower one such as 17-40 or 70-200 f4, believe me, if you buy 70-200 f2.8 you will never think about f4, same when i bought that 16-35 i never think about 17-40 even many said it is better quality than 16-35 mk1, but i will always think i want f2.8 or faster lens if i go with f4 lenses or slower, think about it.

Tareq wrote in post #16696662
It is good to see these kind of threads, decisions about 1 or 2 lenses when fund is not sufficient and we have to decide wisely, don't you all hate to be in this situation where you have to choose 1-2 lenses out of many great lenses out there?

And how funny that you will never see all members are going to choose exact the same 2 lenses, human nature to be different.

Well, because i know i can't choose 1 or 2 i ended up to buy many so i will never be in that situation, i know not all can do that, but i wasn't rich either to get them all at once, but when i got them all i was always thinking wisely when i choose them one by one.

So again, the best 3 zooms out there are: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, for the full frame or even for the crop, then what comes after those are lenses very very good as well, and i can mention them as: 10-22, 24-105, 17-55, 70-300, and 100-400.

I had 10-22[and still i have it] but now i think i will never use it because i use FF and pro bodies that can't take 10-22 directly, same mistake will happen if i bought 17-55, but i did bought L lenses and they live until now on all bodies, i feel happy that i bought something for future before i figure out that i will go FF or 1.3x bodies path, so that i keep telling this here to make people avoid mistakes, and if many of you buy cheap lenses of EF-s and you sell it again good reasonable price to fund another lens then you are all lucky, because here in my country, once i buy something then i have to forget to get it at very good price, and this making me to think why i did a mistake to buy something that i will get rid of it later, but this can happen even for those L glasses, but L glasses always have a big luck to stay longer than EF-s lenses, and also those more expensive fast L will live longer than those slower one such as 17-40 or 70-200 f4, believe me, if you buy 70-200 f2.8 you will never think about f4, same when i bought that 16-35 i never think about 17-40 even many said it is better quality than 16-35 mk1, but i will always think i want f2.8 or faster lens if i go with f4 lenses or slower, think about it.

You make it sound like there are absoutes when talking about best...but that just is not the case. For what I shoot, I would never purchase a 16-35 lens as I shoot this range always stopped down to f8 - f16 and at those apertures, there is no difference in image quality between a 16-35 and a 17-40. There are big differences in price, weight and even filter sizes between those two lens...which are very important.

The same goes for the 70-200 range. I'd never purchase the 2.8 version of this lens as the f4 IS version is much lighter, cheaper and produces same quality images at f8-f16.

So your statements about being best...should be qualified best for you...not for everyone. In fact, a lens like the 70-300 might be a much better ( Best ) lens for travel where you don't want to carry around a 70-200 and a 300 lens.

24-70L II and 70-200L 2.8 IS II.

If I could add a third lens, it would probably be the Samyang 14mm 2.8.

Hogloff wrote in post #16696712
You make it sound like there are absoutes when talking about best...but that just is not the case. For what I shoot, I would never purchase a 16-35 lens as I shoot this range always stopped down to f8 - f16 and at those apertures, there is no difference in image quality between a 16-35 and a 17-40. There are big differences in price, weight and even filter sizes between those two lens...which are very important.

The same goes for the 70-200 range. I'd never purchase the 2.8 version of this lens as the f4 IS version is much lighter, cheaper and produces same quality images at f8-f16.

So your statements about being best...should be qualified best for you...not for everyone. In fact, a lens like the 70-300 might be a much better ( Best ) lens for travel where you don't want to carry around a 70-200 and a 300 lens.

I know what you are talking about, i can always think same way of you, but i don't limit myself because of budget or things i photograph, i may shoot at f8 hundreds times but there will be always time when i need f2.8 or faster also, so with 70-200 f2.8 i know i can use that fast aperture and when i am not in need of it i can always stop down to f8 or even f22, but what you can do when you don't have IS or you don't have f2.8? You will pray for GOD?

Anyway, it is like people will comment on my post to show that i am so perfectionist or only go for the best, well, i learn something only here on the net from this site and similar, and that is: "You get what you pay for". So if i don't pay for the best sooner or later then i should pray and wish to have best after that, you can't make a shot at f4 to look like f1.2 or f2.8 with same lens at same distance, 1 stop or 2 can make a difference, and you said that not all will go that way as i said, but also not all will think as you are as well and they only will go with f4 or cheaper lenses because it is just doing the job, i am sure not all people will follow my thinking and also not all will go your way either, Canon/Nikon and other companies do make those f2.8 for purposes, if you think that those lenses are just too much in price and they are not better than cheaper alternatives then My God why they made them then? We all can buy 17-40 and just let that 16-35 die and discontinued and Canon or Nikon will never make any f2.8 lenses because f4 versions or f5.6 are just right doing the job.

Tareq wrote in post #16697095
I know what you are talking about, i can always think same way of you, but i don't limit myself because of budget or things i photograph, i may shoot at f8 hundreds times but there will be always time when i need f2.8 or faster also, so with 70-200 f2.8 i know i can use that fast aperture and when i am not in need of it i can always stop down to f8 or even f22, but what you can do when you don't have IS or you don't have f2.8? You will pray for GOD?

Anyway, it is like people will comment on my post to show that i am so perfectionist or only go for the best, well, i learn something only here on the net from this site and similar, and that is: "You get what you pay for". So if i don't pay for the best sooner or later then i should pray and wish to have best after that, you can't make a shot at f4 to look like f1.2 or f2.8 with same lens at same distance, 1 stop or 2 can make a difference, and you said that not all will go that way as i said, but also not all will think as you are as well and they only will go with f4 or cheaper lenses because it is just doing the job, i am sure not all people will follow my thinking and also not all will go your way either, Canon/Nikon and other companies do make those f2.8 for purposes, if you think that those lenses are just too much in price and they are not better than cheaper alternatives then My God why they made them then? We all can buy 17-40 and just let that 16-35 die and discontinued and Canon or Nikon will never make any f2.8 lenses because f4 versions or f5.6 are just right doing the job.

It's not necessarily price that stops me from buying a lens, quite often it is the weight and bulk of the lens. Carrying a 70-200 2.8 lens up 3000 meter elevation gain just to shoot it stopped down to f11 is just stupid when a lighter less bulkier version that produces the same quality images is available.

The thing you neec to understand is the best is not always judged by the image quality, or the lens speed or the red ring on the lens. The best quite often comes down to the one that has the least amount of compromises and still does the job.
I do have fast lens, my primes, that I use when shooting events where even your 2.8 speed is too slow.

So for you the best is the 16-35 2.8, but for me in that range it is the Zeiss 21mm paired up with the 17-40. I would have zero use for a 2.8 zoom in that range. Best for you is useless for me.

Hogloff wrote in post #16697150
It's not necessarily price that stops me from buying a lens, quite often it is the weight and bulk of the lens. Carrying a 70-200 2.8 lens up 3000 meter elevation gain just to shoot it stopped down to f11 is just stupid when a lighter less bulkier version that produces the same quality images is available.

The thing you neec to understand is the best is not always judged by the image quality, or the lens speed or the red ring on the lens. The best quite often comes down to the one that has the least amount of compromises and still does the job.
I do have fast lens, my primes, that I use when shooting events where even your 2.8 speed is too slow.

So for you the best is the 16-35 2.8, but for me in that range it is the Zeiss 21mm paired up with the 17-40. I would have zero use for a 2.8 zoom in that range. Best for you is useless for me.

Well, i can always buy Samyang/Rokinon f2.8 and i can live with that, so again, you also bough t fast primes because you know they are needed sometimes, same can go with zooms, not many can go with fast primes that can be as expensive as fast zooms or even more, so it is like you are contradicting.

Also you mentioned the weight of the lens, ok, so are all people now must go with light less bulky as well because you need that?

Well, look at reaplies of members, it varies between light cheaper lens and expensive heavier faster lens, so you know that we both are not so perfect, sure there are many people will go with what you think is good because it is lighter or cheaper or not have much features, others may need more features or faster for their need, and to me, that 70-200 f2.8 is not heavy at all now, it was first time but after i played with 300 f2.8 i see that 70-200 f2.8 like a toy, many said the same about 24-70 so that they called it a brick, but look around and you will see many dream or want to get it as well, and sure there are many many out there don't want 24-70 because they found lighter less expensive as you think.

At the end, the OP have 70-200 2.8 after all and he asked other 2 options openly, and funny he mentioned f4 lenses and once he said "If I had a little more money I would probably go for the 16-35 f2.8", so doesn't that mean he wish to have 16-35 but the budget was a limiter? And also funny he said he doesn't want 2KG monster, then why he bought 70-200 2.8 mk2? sometimes members here are full of confusing between need and want and affordable and limited budget.

Tareq wrote in post #16697306
Well, i can always buy Samyang/Rokinon f2.8 and i can live with that, so again, you also bough t fast primes because you know they are needed sometimes, same can go with zooms, not many can go with fast primes that can be as expensive as fast zooms or even more, so it is like you are contradicting.

Also you mentioned the weight of the lens, ok, so are all people now must go with light less bulky as well because you need that?

Well, look at reaplies of members, it varies between light cheaper lens and expensive heavier faster lens, so you know that we both are not so perfect, sure there are many people will go with what you think is good because it is lighter or cheaper or not have much features, others may need more features or faster for their need, and to me, that 70-200 f2.8 is not heavy at all now, it was first time but after i played with 300 f2.8 i see that 70-200 f2.8 like a toy, many said the same about 24-70 so that they called it a brick, but look around and you will see many dream or want to get it as well, and sure there are many many out there don't want 24-70 because they found lighter less expensive as you think.

At the end, the OP have 70-200 2.8 after all and he asked other 2 options openly, and funny he mentioned f4 lenses and once he said "If I had a little more money I would probably go for the 16-35 f2.8", so doesn't that mean he wish to have 16-35 but the budget was a limiter? And also funny he said he doesn't want 2KG monster, then why he bought 70-200 2.8 mk2? sometimes members here are full of confusing between need and want and affordable and limited budget.

You don't get it. There is NO ultimate best lens. Here is what you said that I totally object to:

"So again, the best 3 zooms out there are: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200"

As I pointed out, those would not be MY best zooms and as can be seen by others posting here, they would not be their best zooms. There is no one best lens, it all depends on the use of the lens and the photographer. You are trying to somehow wrap it up and claim some lens is the ultimate best...which is just not possible to do. I did not ever claim that my choice of lenses are the BEST...they are the ones given compromises and alternatives that I choose to use. I have fantasy they are the BEST.