One camera, two primes - but which two?

[luxborealis]

This is as much a theoretical question as it is a practical one. To some, this will be useless naval gazing. However, I find that by exploring and discussing questions like these I gain a better understanding of how different photographers work and think "behind the scenes". So here it is:

If you have a full-frame DSLR and wanted to take with you a maximum of two prime lenses:

1. Which two would you take? Why those two?

2. How might your decision change if you were using a a tripod versus hand-holding?

3. How would your decision change if you were shooting nature and outdoor photography versus urban photography?

Obviously, each photographer's answer will be different depending on shooting styles and preferred subjects, but that's where the discussion becomes interesting and informative.

Fire away!

[luxborealis]

If you have a full-frame DSLR and wanted to take with you a maximum of two prime lenses:

1. Which two would you take? Why those two?

• 20mm for capturing three-dimensional landscapes with huge depth; making this wide lens a tilt-shift would be important to me, but not absolute;
• 105mm (or there-abouts) Macro lens for caputring details

2. How might your decision change if you were using a a tripod versus hand-holding?

• I can't see it changing, except ensuring the 105 is a VR/IS lens, but then that isn't a de facto requirement

3. How would your decision change if you were shooting nature and outdoor photography versus urban photography?

• again, would probably not change as both landscapes and details are, to me, equally important in both settings, although I might opt for a 24mm tilt-shift for urban over a 20mm for the natural setting

[Petrus]

What is the assignment? For portraits maybe fast 50mm and 100.

For landscape 21 & 100 macro.

For city fast 28 & 135.

I once travelled 7 months with 21, 50 macro, 135 and 300 mm lenses + 120 degree panoramic camera (Widelux F7) and about 95 % of the shots were taken with 21 & 135 almost all the rest with the F7...

[Ellis Vener]

I mostly shoot with full frame Canon bodies so sor me it is always a tossup between a Zeiss 35mm f/2 or a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4  and the second lens is always an 85mm f/1.8  

These focal length choices and lens speeds also apply to full frame Nikon and Sony bodies as well.


1.  Why those two?

They handle 90% of what I do whether in the studio or on location. If I need wider I can stitch. Going longer is a problem however. A third prime would be a 180mm or 200mm f/2.8.

2. How might your decision change if you were using a a tripod versus hand-holding?

Not at all.

3. How would your decision change if you were shooting nature and outdoor photography versus urban photography?

Not at all.

[BernardLanguillier]

It really depends on the mission.

Landscape: often Zeiss 100 and 50mm macro since a lot is stitched, sometimes a longer Leica lens (180 or 280).
Street: often only the 85mm f1.4,
Interior: 24mm f1.4

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ken Bennett]

For full frame cameras, I like two different sets: either a 24 and a 50, or a 35 and an 85. Kind of depends on my mood. My current urban cameras are m4/3, and I carry a 14 and a 45 (28 and 90 eq). Sometimes I replace the 14 with a 20 (40mm eq.) So it's consistent between systems. This is for people photography - for landscape I would carry zooms.

[Jim Pascoe]

I mostly shoot with full frame Canon bodies so sor me it is always a tossup between a Zeiss 35mm f/2 or a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4  and the second lens is always an 85mm f/1.8  

These focal length choices and lens speeds also apply to full frame Nikon and Sony bodies as well.


1.  Why those two?

They handle 90% of what I do whether in the studio or on location. If I need wider I can stitch. Going longer is a problem however. A third prime would be a 180mm or 200mm f/2.8.

2. How might your decision change if you were using a a tripod versus hand-holding?

Not at all.

3. How would your decision change if you were shooting nature and outdoor photography versus urban photography?

Not at all.

I concur almost exactly - except have swapped the 50mm Canon for the 50mm Zeiss Macro.  However I do use the Canon 85mm 1.8 - cheap, light and very good.  Last weekend I shot a whole wedding just using these three lenses on my 1Ds, plus a lot of shots and video with a GH2 and 25mm and 50mm prime lenses (equivalent 50mm and 100mm).
So for me - full frame - the 50mm Macro and 85mm 1.8.

Jim

[JohnBrew]

1. Zeiss 50 Makro & Nikon 85 1.4G.
I agree with Ellis on questions 2 & 3. When I take a third lens, and I often do, its the Zeiss 21.
For NEX-7 I use a Leica 75 Summarit & Leica 35 Summilux.

[geotzo]

Again, you probably need to specify the task.
I would prefer a 21mm Zeiss and a 100mm for landscapes.
For portraits I would go 85mm and 200mm, brightest possible for shallow dof.
Interiors 24mm TSE and 50mm
Very personal decision indeed.

[Rob C]

On FF 135 bodies, I'd probably end up selecting these two: 24mm and 135mm. That's because I have them.

Were I able to have any two lenses which I don't own, I'd probably opt for a 28mm shifter and a 2/200mm.

However, if you limited me to one lens, I'd choose my manual 1.8/50mm Nikkor.

Rob C

[Pingang]

I would do with a 35mm and a makro best if there is a 70mm (try to avoid Sigma) or just go 100mm Makro. This would do probably 99% for me.

Pingang
Shanghai

This is as much a theoretical question as it is a practical one. To some, this will be useless naval gazing. However, I find that by exploring and discussing questions like these I gain a better understanding of how different photographers work and think "behind the scenes". So here it is:

If you have a full-frame DSLR and wanted to take with you a maximum of two prime lenses:

1. Which two would you take? Why those two?

2. How might your decision change if you were using a a tripod versus hand-holding?

3. How would your decision change if you were shooting nature and outdoor photography versus urban photography?

Obviously, each photographer's answer will be different depending on shooting styles and preferred subjects, but that's where the discussion becomes interesting and informative.

Fire away!

[free1000]

However, if you limited me to one lens, I'd choose my manual 1.8/50mm Nikkor.

Rob C

Why the manual one Rob,  Is it much better optically?

I notice that Nikon still sell an extensive range of manual prime lenses, Calumet list about 8 at different focal lengths.

P

[Rob C]

Why the manual one Rob,  Is it much better optically?

I notice that Nikon still sell an extensive range of manual prime lenses, Calumet list about 8 at different focal lengths.

P

I don't know it it's better or not - the difference, though, is in my head: I don't like the idea of losing control to a machine. I'm of the old school, and dislike change where I can't see any huge advantage to it. All of my Nikkors are manual except for the 2.8/180 but I have that set to manual, anyway.

I'm fairly sure that, if I had to do sports work, then I'd have totally different ideas, but I don't do anything like that so it's academic. However, I do get an emotional buzz from the physical experience of seeing a subject come in and out of focus as I turn the ring, especially when using longer optics - I imagine you lose all of that response when a machine does an almost instant adjustment for you. For me focussing is all a part of the great experience of shooting a picture, not something to try and avoid doing; however, with failing eyes, this may all change or simply grind to a halt if I find it becomes more angst than joy.

Oh -a  bit off topic, but regarding the depth of field lines on Nikkors, I find the coloured technique they use next to useless: even when my eyes were pretty damned perfect I couldn't rapidly work out which colour was meant to represent which stop; crappy cop-out from doing it properly, but better than what you get with af nowadays.

Rob C

[AFairley]

35mm PC Nikkor, 55mm Micro Nikkor

[Chairman Bill]

35mm f2 Nikkor & 85mm f1.8 Nikkor

[Rob C]

35mm PC Nikkor, 55mm Micro Nikkor

Once, I'd have agreed with you about the 35mm PC Nikkor, until I did travel through France with it (as well as with everything else) and I constantly felt it too narrow. My 24mm (non-PC) felt too wide, and that's why I would now opt for the old 28 PC which I didn't (and still don't) have.

Naturally, it all depends on what you want to photograph.

Rob C

[theguywitha645d]

On a m4/3 FF camera, I would have a 20mm f/1.8 and 12mm f/2.0. On a 33x44mm FF camera, I would want a 50-55mm and 28-30mm. I would not be very excited about a APS-C or 35mm FF. I guess I would want 40mm and 24mm lenses for the 35mm and 28mm and 16mm for APS-C FF.