File :-(, x, )
Holy Trinity lenses for 1.6x crop Anonymous
Hey /p/, I won the lottery and want to buy 3 lenses and 3 lenses only.

I'm thinking:

EF-S 10-22, 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 4.0 IS L.

That should have me covered no?

(No, I didn't really win the lottery and no, I'm not buying you one.)
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
wile your at it, can you buy me a Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED?
>> Si
Why not the 70-200 2.8??

If you won the lottery, wouldnt you be able to afford a FF camera? screw the 10-22 and grab that 16-35 to complete the set.

Also, buy me a hasselblad.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
You win the lottery and you only buy 3 lenses? DUDE!!!!!!!

COME ON!!!

Buy everyone on /p/ some new shit. Get me a D3 please. I'll even let you hold my hand.
>> Anonymous
I'll fax you a check, how about that?

Oh yeah, I know the picture doesn't show the lenses I mentioned but it was the first picture with 3 lenses on Google.

Seriously now, is there anything better for 3,000$? Those 3 are a bit less than that.
>> Anonymous
>>112770

Everyone posted before my last post. No, I only have 3,000$. I'm not blowing it all on one camera. I like my 40D thank you.

70-200 4.0 IS is optically better than the 2.8 but regardless, I'm not confident enough to handhold it at 200mm. I would use it in plain daylight anyway so freezing motion isn't an issue. Less bokeh but whatever.
>> Anonymous
Is it just too late at night to get some feedback? /p/ is slow but not this slow.

I'll add more details I guess. Reasoning behind 3 lenses is I only need to cover wide, standard and short tele.

And pretty much, I just want the best for those 3 uses, within budget obviously.

The 10-22 is the only wide angle I can get for 1.6x. There's the Sigma but all opinions are that if you can afford the Canon, get the Canon.

The 24-70 is weak on the wide end compared to the 17-55 2.8 IS so maybe just maybe I might get it instead of the L.

The 70-200 4.0 IS is pretty much the sharpest lens Canon has right now. Great performance throughout the focal lengths and good wide open.

So is this the Holy Trinity or what?

(Why no primes? Less flexible I guess. I can afford the inferior image quality with those 3 lenses.)
>> Anonymous
grab a 24-105mm L IS and a 70-300 2.8 L IS

the ef-s 10-22 is really fun.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
For crop bodies?

The Canon 10-22, 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS are the ones you should go for.
>> Anonymous
you don't think that
24-105mm L IS is a good choice for him? It gives a very good range without him having to switch lenses out, the 10-22 is there for wider shots, but 24-105 is a really good range.
>> beethy
>>112853
I think it is.

I've used that lens and it's MUCH better for the mid range.

10-22 / 24-105 / 70-200 (either 2.8 or 4)

fucking perfect lens set
(if you are thinking of upgrading to full frame sensor soon, consider the 14mm II instead of the EFS 10-22mm, liek srsly)
>> Anonymous
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.4
Canon/Sigma 70-200 2.8

Of course 50mm 1.8 MK I would be nice too. But that would make it 4.

Wides and zooms are boring.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112853

He seemed interested in the wide end, has the longer end covered by the excellent zoom and the 24-105 isn't wide on a crop body. That and the fact it's not got a very wide aperture. Not as fast as the one he mentioned in the OP and I suggested. It's a bit too much of a compromise in my eyes. The 24-70 2.8 would be better if he had to go that route, but it's still not going to give a wide view on that body and lacks the IS.

The 17-55 works very well on the crop body. 27-88 if you think of the "FOV crop" compared to 35mm sizes. A very workable range and the optics are very good for a zoom.

If you want one lens to do everything while you walk about then you may as well get the 18-200 like Ken Rockwell suggests. I think you're better off getting the shorter range ones and working with the limitations. People used to manage with FFL lenses before (especially the standard or 'normal') and still can.

Buy a lens with a specific purpose in mind for it, rather than because you don't know what you are taking pictures of and want something that might do everything or anything as you wander vaguely hoping to think of something to take pictures of. That's the realm of tourists.

If he has a specific use for that lens, whatever that lens may be, then that is always the ideal lens for him, naturally.

Personally I think he'd be better buying ONE lens now and learning to use it before moving on. Splurging like this rarely gives the best results.

Oh, and I like the 2.8 zooms. :)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>112858

A FFL or two would be very nice if the OP could be brought around to that way of thinking.
>> beethy
>>112859
I can agree with that.

Owning 1 new lens at a time is a better way to go, that way you'll be more creative rather than feeling limited by a certain lens and switching back and forth.
>> Anonymous
Could you email me a Nikon D3?
>> Anonymous
>>112795

24-105 is same price as the 24-70 but the 70-200 2.8 IS blows up my budget by 500$.

Endless debate about 24-105 vs. 24-70 but I'll take my chances with the 24-70 as my moderately fast lens.

>>112826

Same thing, 70-200 2.8 IS is too expensive. 17-55 vs. 24-70 I'm still thinking about.

>>112858

Yeah, sure. Primes make you work for your shot. But as far as IQ goes, the lenses I got can go up against most primes.

------

My old lenses were the 17-85 IS and 50/1.4. 17-85 was good for most things if I had enough light and the 50 prime was fine for portraits.

I don't think it's worth it to sell them so I'll just put them in a box somewhere. The 50/1.4 might see some use I guess but I very rarely use my camera indoors anyway.

Another thing is I like to have all my camera gear with me on the go. I have no issues changing lenses outside and I've got 10-200mm coverage with those 3, which I can probably carry with me all day.

Yeah, you'll say if I have no problem switching lenses, might as well get primes. But I can't cover the same focal lengths on the wide end as with the 10-22.

If my budget can hold it, please give me recommendations.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
You seem to have already made up your mind then.
>> Anonymous
I have the 24-105 and it's godly. I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS, which is also godly. For the latter, stopped down to f4, I can't see the f4 lens is any better. The 24-105 is great exactly because of the extra reach. Changes these lenses can be a pain when you're trying to shoot stuff fast.
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
     File :-(, x)
>>112760
Buy this cart, OP.

Discount codes for these prices here.
http://www.supercoupon.com/Coupons/Electronics/B%26H_Coupon_for_Canon/

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 13:16:07Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width574Image Height556
>> Anonymous
>>113090
Some nice discounts in that link.