File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ITT: your ideal lens kit.

This is my setup. I do mostly portrait and landscape right now on both my 35mm Elan 7 and Rebel XTi. The 50mm is sharp and fucking cheap, good for low light shots of multiple people in a room. The 85mm is a fantastic lens, nice build quality and the perfect portrait focal length, also fast. 17-40 is an excellent landscape and general purpose lens although I wish it were as fast as the 16-35 f/2.8. I use it for landscapes on both cameras but it doubles as a standard zoom on the digital because of the crop factor. And lastly, the 70-200 for longer portraits and the occasional animal.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S1 ISCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.1Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:03:05 22:17:12Exposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/5.0Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length9.03 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width610Image Height404RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Fukken expensive
>> Anonymous
I looked up the 70-200mm lens and it looks pretty fantastic albeit pretty expensive.
>> Anonymous
Nice setup - I'm thinking of investing in either of the 70-200 ones, depending on whichever deal I manage to find at the time, as well as the 17-40. The 17-40 is an incredibly sexy piece of optics - it could be faster, but it's sharper than the 16-35.

ATM, I shoot with a 50mm/1.8 and 24-70mm/2.8L. I miss my Sigma 12-24. :-(
>> Anonymous
To be perfectly honest I own a 70-200 F4 BUT I rarely use the fucking thing. Most expensive piece of glass I have and I usually leave it out of the kit.

From what I read every newbie and whatnot seems to want/have/need one and I seriously doubt it. Sure it's sharp and fast and great if you need the range but if you don't it's such a waste of cash.

Yeh, I was stupid buying such an expensive toy without thinking about possible uses but I'm honestly sick of hearing about them.

/rant//

Sorry to derail and I'm sure everyone but me has a practical use for an expensive white penis extension.

I'm happier with my second hand 20 F2.8...
>> Anonymous
What I want: Nikon 17-35 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4.
>> des
nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 AF, a 35-70 f/2.8 AF, 50mm f/1.4 AF, 85mm f/1.4 AI-s, 135mm f/2 AF-DC, tamron sp 70-210 f/3.5
I'd love a nikkor-noct 50mm f/1.2 but that's silly. I'm a realist idealist.

Really the only thing I'm missing from my kit that hurts once in a while is a long tele. Which isn't something I care about too often anyway. If I had those lenses, I'd walk around with the 35-70 permanently attached, most likely; probably with the 85 in my pocket.
>> Ruskie
I have
Pentax SMC-DA 18-55/3,5-5,6 AL and Pentax SMC-DA 50-200/4-5,6 ED
Im quite satisfied whit this kit. But if I where to find a lot of money I would replace the 18-55 with a 16-45 and buy a Pentax SMC-FA 50/1,4.
>> Anonymous
Go Go Gadget Lack-of-money!

EF-S 18-55 II,
EF 50mm f/1.8 II,
EF 35mm f/2.0

Pretty sure that's Canon's cheapest three lenses. I almost never use the kit zoom unless I really need something wider than normal.

(I'm a slave to Available Light)
>> Anonymous
>>37039
OP here, I'm finding myself in sort of the same situation. I like my 70-200, it's got great image quality and when I actually do use it I can get some pretty amazing shots but I rarely do. The biggest problem with it is that it's so damn big and conspicuous. I can't use it for candids and it's a bitch to carry around. I'm considering selling it and using the cash for a 50mm 1.4 to replace the 1.8, I fucking hate the focusing on that thing.
>> Anonymous
I also have a 70-200 f/2.8, and I also rarely use it because it's so large and expensive.
>> Anonymous
if i had the money
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM with a camera
and
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with a camera
at the same time, ready for any situation at a moments notice ^_^
>> Anonymous
Out of the cannon lenses, which one of them do find you use the most?

I would have thought the 70-200mm would have made a great addition to a lens kit, but I guess that was wrong.
>> Anonymous
On my film camera, I use the 85mm 1.8 the most. On my digital, it's the 17-40mm f/4L.
>> Anonymous
what is a good lens for low light that won't make me too sad in the wallet?
>> thefamilyman
>>37085
if your a nikon user, 50mm f/1.8 super cheap and super good (i'm not kidding ask anyone who has one)

as for other camera mounts.... i dunno
>> Anonymous
Same applies for Canon. The 50mm f/1.8 is only $70 and has great image quality. It's shitty build quality but that's what you get for less than $100.
>> Anonymous
>>37071
Absolutely worthwhile replacement, might do the same if I sell the 70-200 I bitched about. The 50 1.8 focus sucks.

I keep finding myself wanting to go wider than the 20 2.8 but 10-22 and it's 3.5-4.5 shits me, I like my F-Stop locked regardless of zoom. I like the look of the 15mm fisheye but I don't know if it would last long before the fisheye look would piss me off.
>> Anonymous
>>37102

You should have a look at the Sigma 14mm f/2.8EX. It's a fully rectilinear lens with 7 aperture blades, and it's surprisingly good, too. If you have the $, then of course Canon has their own 14/2.8L, but haven't had any problems with the Sigma. Only downside with the lens is that it's a fucking huge chunk of glass, albeit only 72mm wide.

AND, of course, if you go fullframe/film, then there's the Sigma 12-24mm... it's only f/4.5-5.6 tho.
>> www.nordfoto.se Jens
     File :-(, x)
My setup, thinks it works pretty good... so far :)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon IXY DIGITAL 600Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:02:24 15:13:12Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.70 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width550Image Height413RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>37037

I find my 17-40 to be pretty disappointing, honestly, even on my pretty undemanding 10D..though it does seem to spend quite a bit of time on the camera. I expected much better from the amount of money I plunked down on it, still. I'd rent one before you buy one, and make sure it meets your expectations. I think it's easily the most over-hyped lens in Canon's lineup. The 70-200 series, however, are everything everyone says they are, and more...though the IS and focus system on my 70-200 are kinda cranky sometimes. I'm kicking myself for not sending it in for service under warranty :(

>>37039

If you rarely use something, force yourself to. I use my 70-200 all the time; the short depth of field and pretty long nature (on the cropped sensor) make it great for getting some interesting shots people with point&shoots just cannot duplicate, and look different enough to catch attention.

>>37059

How is the 35? I have a 50/1.8, and yes, it's quite nice- but too high on the cropped sensor. I think I'd really enjoy having a wider prime to mess around with.
>> Anonymous
>>37171
I really like it. It's the lens on my camera 80% of my time nowadays. Kinda wish I'd gone for the 28mm f/1.8 instead, though, especially since my parents were buying (Christmas present), but... I didn't actually know the 28mm f/1.8 existed at that time. Because I'm dumb.

Next one I'm thinking of getting is the 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus. 135mm is a nontrivial telephoto on a 1.6x crop, and the softfocus might be nice for doing the Generic Boring Wedding Shots that a friend of mine's thinking about having me do.
>> Anonymous
Nikon 17-35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.4, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 300mm f4
>> Anonymous
>>37828
Why not go 50mm f/1.4, seeing that you went 85mm f/1.4?

Mine would be 50mm f/1.4, 80-200mm f/2.8, which I already have, and for the future, it'd either be the 17-35mm f/2.8 or 12-24mm. Just keeping the hope that all these non DX lenses would find some use on a future, unannounced full frame DSLR from Nikon or Fuji.
>> Anonymous
>>37171
How is the 35? I have a 50/1.8, and yes, it's quite nice- but too high on the cropped sensor. I think I'd really enjoy having a wider prime to mess around with.

I've got the 20|2.8 and it's beautiful on a cropped sensor and on my film SLR it's so wide it's almost fisheye
>> Anonymous
My ideal lens kit -
Primes: Sigma 20/1.8, KM/Sony 35/1.4, KM/Sony 50/1.4, CZ 85/1.4, CZ 135/1.8 and KM/Sony 300/2.8 G.
Zooms: Either CZ 16-80 or Sony 18-250.
>> thefamilyman
>>37842
is that the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D AF?
i'm looking at that lens for my F5
>> Anonymous
>>37855
I have a Nikon 20mm f/2.8D. It's small and light but the chromatic abberation is huge and the distortion is also quite pronounced. That said, though, I like it.