Essential lenses.

>>2919566

THE ONE YOUR SHOOTING CALLS FOR, YOU FUCKING SIMPLETON.

>>2919566
Prolly a Zeiss 50mm f/0.7. You can't go wrong with it.

Fast normal-to-normal wide prime (50-35mm, f/2 or faster)

short tele (85 to 135 mm range)

Wide angle (24 or wider, doesn't have to be fast).

Those three lenses will cover 90% of the photographer you could want to do.

>>2919580

Oh, and if you had to make do with one lens for the rest of your life, it should be a 24-70 zoom. It's by far the best bang for your buck, in terms of different "looks". A single lens that can go from really wide to short tele is a fucking miracle and will cover most of your daily photography.

Wide zoom
Tele zoom
Fast prime

This is what I'd tell anyone to get having absolutely no idea what they want to shoot.

>>2919566
none.

Just put a pinhole in your mount cover.

>>2919566
Normal prime lens (50mm), f/1.8 (or f/1.4 if you've got too much cash).

Wide angle, 28mm is where it starts but 24mm is also common; f/3.5 is ok and f/2.8 is nice, f/2 is prestige money. Speed doesn't matter all that much because with wider lenses it's plausible to handhold 1/15s where with a normal lens you'd generally stay around 1/30s or faster.

Semi-telephoto, 85 / 105 / 135mm. f/3.5 is adequate, f/2.5 is good, anything faster is terribly pricy. Speed becomes important because with these it's generally 1/250s to avoid just blur due to heartbeats alone, 1/125 is also OK, and 1/60s is pushing it.

Personally I've been having a weird old time trying to wean myself off the 50mm teat: it's like the 28mm covers all of what I see _and then some_, and the 135mm is either too narrow or not narrow enough. More practice is what it takes, of course.

It varies from person to person.
For me, it is a fast normal or wide prime, a compact tele zoom, and a fast tele prime.

File: 88c218_5232414.jpg (155KB, 1276x1018px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1276x1018px

Street - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART
Telephoto - Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
General - Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD (my favourite lens of the lot)
UWA - Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD (prefer this over the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 USM III for the optical stabilization and also for price)
Bokeh - Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM II (don't own it but just played with it)

Don't own the last two lenses, but I really want to get them. Probably going to go for the 85mm f/1.2L USM II first since I already have a couple of UWA zooom lenses.

>>2919756

>posting poverty lenses
>declaring your own post the end of the thread

Sugar Junior?

File: IMG_1359.jpg (589KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1000x750px

>>2919580
This pretty much nails it, IMO.

35 and 85, or their crop equivalents, are my specific choices for the first two. I like something in the 20mm (FF) range for the ultrawide.

I'd add that a decent "kit" telephoto is probably a good thing to have, too. They're generally small and light enough to carry around and they add a lot of useful capability for the average amateur photog. I have a lot of experience with teles, all the way up to supertele primes that cost as much as a nice used car, and I was really surprised how decent and usable the 55-230 I got for free with my Fuji setup was.

Pic related, it's my current kit, except I just added a Rokinon 12mm, and it covers most general-purpose stuff quite well. I'll be adding a 50-140 2.8 before too long, but that's a specialty lens that most people don't need.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot S90
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:31 14:34:04
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2919793
What are your thoughts on the Fuji 18-135? I'm thinking if getting in because I don't want to carry around multiple lenses when traveling, and this would cover every focal length I need.

Ive gotten by with a 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm for 9 years now.

File: IMAG0848 resize.jpg (174KB, 1000x565px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1000x565px

My lenses are:
18-55 kit
50mm prime
70-300mm tele/macro zoom
10-20 wide angle zoom
So far these four lenses have covered everything I need.

I probably went a bit crazy with the zoom lens, but I have used the 300mm so I guess it was worth my money.

The one I use the least is my prime. I could see where it would come in handy but I like the zoom function too much to give it up.
By far my favorite overall is my 10-20, though.

pic related is my kit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	831C
Camera Software	paint.net 4.0.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:16 21:09:35
Exposure Time	1/11 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	-2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Other
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.82 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2688
Image Height	1520
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2919566
>18mm 1.4
>35mm 1.4
>50mm 1.4
>85mm 1.4
>135mm 1.4
That's it

>>2919566
Fast normal prime, wide normal prime, one fast telephoto.

>>2919566

Something fast. Then, whatever they want.

>>2921446

That is the plan for my kit as well, except I went with a 55-250mm IS lens and I still need to pick up the wide angle lens, probably going to get a 10-18mm. The 50mm is useful but on a crop sensor it is a little too tight, I'm planning to replace it with a 24mm 2.8.

File: Babbys First Lenses.jpg (262KB, 999x1001px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 999x1001px

Here's my starter pack recommendation.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	999
Image Height	1001

remember: less is more

>>2920082
No clue, it's not the kind of lens I'd ever own. It's probably decent, as most Fuji lenses are, but I don't really like the idea of having to rely on a lens that slow.

>>2920082
For the size of the thing you could have a couple primes instead. Let in that light anon.

>>2919756
I think 50mm is an average at best focal length. It's not wide enough for many compositions, but also not long enough to focus in on any details and provide adequate compression.
You're much better served with a 35 & 85mm lens, as you get a decent wide view and 85mm isn't uncomfortably long.

>>2921498
Yeah, in hindsight maybe that's what I should have gone for. There's the pancake out there and I think that's a 24. That may be the lens you're talking about. I agree though, I find myself in weird places with that lens when the 18-55 kit would have done the shot much more comfortably.

>>2921679

A 35mm would be approximately the same as a 50mm on a full frame but the pancake 24mm is about 1/3 the price and is still about a 40mm. I may eventually also get a 85mm 1.8 for concert photography where I'm a bit further from the stage.

>>2921696
I just went taking pictures at Cars & Coffee and man do I still say I really appreciate my 10-20. Not the FASTEST thing in the world, in fact it's kind of slow...but I was able to get like 5 feet away from the car from the side and get the whole thing in the shot. Really helps from having people cut in front of you since car meets/shows are typically quite busy...

I may consider getting the 24mm pancake maybe around Xmas time, or something. I don't do a lot of close range stuff that requires absolute speed, or need something super compact. The 18-55 kit lens really is OK. The thing I'd rather go for is something like a more versatile "do it all" lens..Maybe like a 10-50 or something? That would be pretty cool. I find myself often leaving my bag in the car then bringing one lens in to an event, though bigger events I may bring the bag, but in one area I typically leave the bag in the car. Like today I shot with nothing but my 10-20.

>>2919566
None, it depends on the situation.

But I wished everyone had money for M.Zuiko / Canon L / Sigma Art or Sports / G Master / the nicer Zeiss', and so on. Because they take neat photos.

>>2921808
>M.Zuiko

Lolympus calls all of their lenses that, including turds like the 17mm pancake.

>>2921821
It stands for multicoated you brilliant person.

>>2921824
kek

>have 2 Russian M42 lenses
>MC Zenitar, MC stands for Multi-Coated
>MC Rubinar, MC stands for Maksutov-Cassegrain
what the fuck

>>2921498
>>2921679
The Sigma "crop tele zooms" are total dog shit. For the money, I would have gone with the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM or for a little bit more money, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC USD, which to be honest is a really, sharp lens, especially for the money.

Or you just full fool frame and get a 70-200mm f/2.8 from either Tamron or Canon.

>>2921900

I went with the Canon 55-250mm IS STM, so far I haven't bought any third party lens.

>>2922117
that way you have every single possible focal length

zooms are a scam anon

if I only had one lens it'd be the XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens

>>2922161
>one lens
>choosed 85mm equivalent
why?

I would choose a 28 equivalent.

>>2919566

essential?

I guess a fast 35mm and a fast 85mm. I can do 90% of my shots with just those two lenses.

>>2919793
>I have a lot of experience with teles, all the way up to supertele primes

What brand?

>>2921505
>Falling for the macro meme

>>2922157

If the 75-300mm was IS and $200 I would have bought it instead, it's not so I bought the 55-250mm. Zooms are a compromise but still useful, if you don't need them that's fine too.

>>2922187
85mm is a comfy FL though, I have one practically glued to my camera.

>>2922243
This shit right here.

File: 13886899_985542268229763_132700548206142814_n.jpg (69KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 780x520px

28mm, 50mm, 135mm.

35, 85 and long telephotos only if you find yourself really needing them. Zooms are garbage memes unless you are ready to pay through the butt for the actually good ones.

File: Obama+Arrives+White+House+After+Speaking+Philadelphia+hP14eVSBqzpx.jpg (121KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x683px

I'd like to think I've shot a good variety of focal lengths, and my essentials are in two separate sets.

For work (I do documentary photography), I shoot 24/1.4, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.2 and 125/2.5. All Canon save the last one, but I'd probably go for the Canon 135/2 if I were to replace it.

For fun, I shoot film lenses for a distinct character in rendition. I shoot a Summilux pre-asph 35/1.4 and a Super Takumar 50/1.4.

As an example, white house photographer Pete Souza's kit consists of two 5D3s, 35/1.4, 24-70/2.8 and a 135/2, which makes a lot of sense for his work.

What do you generally use 135s for?

>>2922480

I'm close. I like 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm.

But if I had to choose two lenses, it would be the 50mm and 135mm.

>>2923003

135mm is great for adding gratuitous amounts of bokeh for shit thats a bit farther away than normal :)

>>2923009
What are you shooting with? I just bought a 135mm f2 for my 70D.
Worried it'll be too much reach for my needs with a crop but eager to try it.
Should be in the mail tomorrow.
Longest I had was 50mm til now

>ctrl+f 100-400
>0 results