Here's an interesting question - 2 lenses kit

[pokiemon]

i used only one lens 24-70 f2.8. nothing i cant do with it.

i do at times wished i had a 85 f1.4 though.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Wah phiang tough.. though nwadays i aso seldom go "full force" on every each day, so for me, if on :-

Urban shooting - 24-70 / 85
Portrait Shooting - 16-35 / 135
Macro Shooting - 105 / 200
Landscape Shooting - 16-35 / 24-70

Lidat can anot :bsmilie:

I support this approach, although don't have so many f/2.8 zooms or exotics like 135DC. And I like a wider (Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 10-17) and longer approach (80-200 or 70-300). Often I go macro with just 1 lens.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

i used only one lens 24-70 f2.8. nothing i cant do with it.

i do at times wished i had a 85 f1.4 though.

I suppose it is nothing you want to do that you can't do with that.

Yes when you are on one lens there is nothing else that matters!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Charlietan]

Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 10-20.

 

[coolpix]

Canon 15-85 zoom and 85 1.8f prime

 

[icefox23]

walk about & landscape - 18-105mm VR
portrait - 50mm f1.8
nature & sports - 55-200mm VR

 

[theRenaissance]

Walkabouts & street shooting - 35mm 1.8 & 105mm 2.5

 

[mondocheesemonster]

I would go for 17-50 f2.8 and 60mm f2.0!

 

[duffydufs]

whenever i go out for shoot i always bring my
24-105 & 70-200/50mm

 

[Kit]

14-24mm and PC-E 24mm.

 

[Numnumball]

14-24mm and PC-E 24mm.

Kit, hw abt ur newly acquired 16-35?? can go wider with filters :devil:

 

[Kit]

Kit, hw abt ur newly acquired 16-35?? can go wider with filters :devil:

Have to choose 2 leh.....:sweat:

 

[Numnumball]

Have to choose 2 leh.....:sweat:

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: ya lor.. can only choose two.. else these will make a fearsome trio for landscape/archikectural photography.. :think: any chance of ur favoring ur new "asset" over the 1st choice pair of 14-24 & 24 PC? replacing either one of them.. :devil:

Edit : i would have thought all 3 are indispensable.

 

[Kit]

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: ya lor.. can only choose two.. else these will make a fearsome trio for landscape/archikectural photography.. :think: any chance of ur favoring ur new "asset" over the 1st choice pair of 14-24 & 24 PC? replacing either one of them.. :devil:

Edit : i would have thought all 3 are indispensable.

Actually the 16-35 is close of useless for archi/interior works for me due to the curvilinear distortions issue. I don't want to spend additional time correcting them and worse, risk having to re-shoot. That's why the 14-24 is still the mainstay. The 16-35 would be good for landscapes and some cityscapes where straight lines are not so critical or can be easily corrected.

 

[Numnumball]

Actually the 16-35 is close of useless for archi/interior works for me due to the curvilinear distortions issue. I don't want to spend additional time correcting them and worse, risk having to re-shoot. That's why the 14-24 is still the mainstay. The 16-35 would be good for landscapes and some cityscapes where straight lines are not so critical or can be easily corrected.

I would have thoght so..

14-24 and 24 PC for ur line of work

16-35 for those casual landscape/cityscape shoots.
Actually @ 16mm, it makes a gd semi fisheye @ times..

 

[bylim]

24-105
8-16

 

[chalib]

24-105
85

 

[auratux]

28mm f/2.8 and a recently acquired 11-16

Before the 11-16, it was a 50mm f/1.8

 

[wildcat]

Nikkor 10-24mm only. This is the lens I bring out the most and I find most versatile. I can bring this out without anything else.

The other lens I will being out very often is the kit Nikkor 18-105mm, and will couple it with a prime or telezoom depending on what I have in mind to shoot, or with the 10-24mm.

 

[sepia]

Sigma 30 f1.4 + EF 85 f1.8