3 lenses you MUST own or you are a fucking idiot. https://w

your a fucking idiot.

>>3004419
This guy is insane did you watch any of his magnetism videos?

So, basically you're an idiot if you don't shoot Nikon? What a fat piece of shit.

>>3004425
B-but that's true anon.

Who would buy anything other than Nikon and Sony or Leica?

>>3004419
best three lens kit is 24 or 28, 50, 90 or 105
this kit is so much of nothing, 35 and 60 are just stopgap lenses. this dude is a retard

>>3006091
this desu

>>3006091
35mm is more versatile, you can even do portraits with it.

A 55 or 60 macro lens can be used as a "normal" lens on a FF body and a portrait lens on a croped body.

>>3004419
how can one man be so smart and yet so stupid at the same time kek

I'm not listening to that horrific voice for 10 minutes.
Just tell me what the three lenses are you fat ass.

Not that I think that there's any realistic chance you're going to convince me not to use the lenses I already carefully selected.

>>3007053
>girl
>argument invalid

>>3007053
You probably shoot zooms

>>3007079
Cute
>>3007098
Wrong

>>3007115
You sound obese

>>3007191
(You)

>>3007098
What's wrong with zooms? I would rather have a 24-70 than a prime.

>>3006091
I couldn't disagree more. 50 is the real "stopgap" lens, not wide enough to be a wide and not long enough to be a tele. 35 is the ideal general purpose lens in my book, wide enough to give a sense of immersion in a street scene but long enough for flattering full-length portraits or certain product photos.

I've been shooting seriously for almost 20 years now, and have owned 40+ lenses, and my favorite combo is ~20mm, 35mm, and 85mm, plus a tele zoom because sometimes you just need the reach. You can pare that back to just the 35 and 85 and still have a very versatile kit.

However, I get that my needs aren't the same as everybody else's, unlike Ken, who calls everybody a retard if they don't do EXACTLY the same stuff he does.

>>3007225

There's nothing wrong with them. Not anymore.

Once upon a time, primes offered better image quality than zooms. But advances in lens design and technology have closed that gap to such a degree that there is no clear advantage to a primes-only setup.

Most of the criticisms of zooms you hear nowadays come from purists who are too good for a zoom lens. Whatever. When they can look at a collection of recently-shot images and point out with >70% accuracy which images were shot with primes and which were shot with zooms, I'll listen. I haven't seen anyone able to do it, and I don't suspect I will anytime soon.

With a quality 24-70 like you described and a 70-200 to go with it, you'll be able to handle about 95% of the photography assignments that come your way. No worries.

>>3007225
Zooms typically don't get faster than 2.8. A prime can give you 2-3 stops more light than a fast zoom which means you can crank your ISO down for improved image quality.