If you could only use 3 lenses....

[Ned Soltz]

Just picked up a T2i and haven't even taken out of the bag yet!

I decided to replace kit lens with Tamron 17-50 VC f/2.8. About $450 less than the Canon (net of the Tamron rebate) and the only major complaint I've heard about it is touchy focus. I'll see if this is wide enough (probably will not be) and will add a Tokina 11-16 when available. Now just need a telephoto to complete the kit and still pondering what to do there.

[Andy Wilkinson]

I have the Canon 70-200 F4 IS (for my 7D) - if your budget can stretch to that you won't be disappointed. IS is a bit noisy but terrifically effective. Some buy the F2.8 version but I'd rather have this one as it's half the weight, size and price :-)

My other two lenses are the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS AF USM EF-S (stunning for both video and stills) and the Canon 10-22 F3.5-F4.5 AF USM EF-S (equally superb, not as fast as the much talked about Tokina but has many other advantages for the work I do - especially less barrel distortion and much less flare suseptibility than the Toki, more usable zoom range etc.).

I also have a Canon 1.4x Extender for the Tele (the only EF lens I have/it will fit). It's mainly for photographic stuff - even with it on (and at full stretch) I still get superbly sharp pictures.

Eventually I'll get a super fast 30mm (or thereabouts)...but that makes 4 so I guess I'm not allowed to mention that on a thread asking for only 3 lenses! :-)

[Ron German]

When I (soon) get my T2i, I intend to buy a new Tamron 28-75mm as a workaround lens, because it has had good user reviews, but mainly it is a full frame lens.
Anyone have any experience with this zoom?

[Mel Enriquez]

If I were to have only 3 lenses, good for video and photo it would be:

- canon ef-s 10-22 f3.5-4.5 usm
- tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2 VC
- canon 70-200 f2.8L IS

The 10-22 has a FOV of 16-35mm. This gives you the wide for dramatic vista or interior shots. It is also good and gives a nice effect on gliding/flying. This lens is an L lens in essence even if it is not marked as such. It is sharp, contrasty, has good saturation, flare resistant (for a wide angle), focuses fast and accurately, is rectilinear for a wide. Others will choose the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for this, but in my experience, the wideness of this lens is more tolerable to hand shakes and there is virtually very little shallow DOF you can get with f2.8 vs f3.5-4.5 anyway that the reason for f2.8 is hard to justify in my case. Also, the canon has very little chromatic aberrations (w/c the tokina is usually known for) and the 10-22 range is more useful than the 11-16. That 1mm difference is big if you are in a tight spot.

I will not and do not go for the Sigma 10-20/22 because Sigma's tend to be flaky in QC. They are also less sharp in many copies compared to Canon's. I am not going to go on a trial and error to get a good copy with Sigma.


I chose the Tamron 17-50 VC over the canon ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS because optically it is on par with the latter without the size, weight, and the price of the canon version. The tamron does a very good "macro" as well. The VC will help stabilize handheld shots both in video and photo. The only downside of the Tamron is the lack of ring USM. In most situations this is not needed though and since today's AF is very slow to the point you'd best do it yourself, the slower AF speed is basically moot and not a relevant disadvantage. Also, the tamron costs half the price of the Canon!

I was torn between my 50 f1.4 usm vs the 70-200 f2.8L IS as my third lens. I own both of them. In fact I already have all the lenses I mentioned here. However, I opted for the 70-200 f2.8L IS because of the range, IS and great bokeh and sharpness if used properly. More importantly, if I am forced to shoot from afar, such as inside the church or in a reception, or stage play/show, I have the long range covered. That basically tilted my choice overall even if the 50 1.4 usm would have given me the shallower DOF for some artsy shot.

An alternate 3 lens lineup is:

- 10-22
- 50 f1.4
- 70-200 f2.8L IS

I lose the flexibility of the 17-50 f2.8 but gain the sharp 50 1.4. For photography this would work well using 2 bodies. For video, it may be tougher to use even if one is to carry 2 bodies for video!

These 3 lenses would do both well in almost all situations and different types of photography. The good thing is I'm not really constrained to three. In the real world of a pro and events shooter, you do carry backups, so the 50 f1.4 will definitely be in there for a 4-lens lineup minimum. In reality, I might even have the 18-55 IS kit lens in there as a backup in case the tamron fails. Maybe a 55-250 IS is there to backup the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Both are small light and not a burden to carry or have in the bag. Only the 70-200L is heavy and large, but it justifies its existence because of it's range, great optics, and low light capabilities. Add a 1.4x TC there and you extend the range further just in case you need more range.

[Stan Chase]

I could do 95% of what I want for stills and video with two T2i bodies (with grips) and these two lenses:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

For the other 5% I would want:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I could take only the 70-200 with me if I went full frame, but I don't see that happening unless I won the lottery. On my budget, $1000 is as much as I dare spend at one time. I'm about a third of the way with what I have now, but if I did get all that gear above, I'd have to make it pay for itself much more than I do now. I consider myself a semi-pro..don't make enough to afford the best of the best, but I have more fun with it since I don't have to depend on it for a living.

[Arif Syed]

this is certainly not the precise place to ask, but for someone on a budget the Canon 50mm 1.8 looks very appealing because of the sub 100 price tag. Is it worth it, or would I be wasting my money?

[Scott Shama]

The 50mm 1.8 is easily worth the money... fun lens to shoot with.

[Nate Morse]

Call me crazy, but I'd buy primes. For an APS-C sensor (like the 7D/T2i) I'd probably get a 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm lens. If money were no object, I'd buy L glass. Otherwise, I'd look into getting a set of used Canon or Nikon lenses.

Sure, I'd still want something wider occasionally. But I could always rent or borrow from a friend.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Reading this post just gets me more and more confused. Let's say I want only video work, and that too indie filmmaking, guerrilla style (but with the option of scaling up lights, night work, etc), what are the three lenses I absolutely need to go for?

I might have the option for a tripod in some shots, handheld in others. Motion (dolly, crane and handheld) will be standard. Lighting conditions including night work (with lights) and bright days; green screen work and shallow DOF. I guess that's about it.

Any suggestions on what 2-3 lenses I absolutely need to go for and can depend on for an entire 30-day shoot?

[Robert Turchick]

I think all these answers cover video pretty well. That's the primary use of my T2i and my 3 choices are the Canon 10-22 F3.5-F4.5 (or Tokina 11-16), Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L and Canon 70-200 F/4 L.
Wide, general, and tele.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Sareesh,

It sounds to me like you are doing human-scale narrative. IMHO, the key range on a full frame camera is roughly 28-85. That's 17.5 - 53 on an ASP-C camera. You could cover this with an EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

On the other hand, you mention dollies and cranes, in which case, you don't need IS. And if you absolutely want to nail focus, you will want the best focus control you can get. In that case, I'd get the Zeiss 18mm, 28mm, and 50mm lenses. The ZE and ZF series lenses have high quality and excellent focus rings. In fact, soon Zeiss will introduce a new set of Compact Prime II lenses. These will have even longer throws of 300 degrees for accurate focus control. The Zeiss ZE and ZF lenses are in the $1,000 range. The Compact Prime II lenses will be more like $3,500 each.

So, if you want the best quality and focus control in the critical range, Zeiss primes are a good choice.

But it really depends on style. The 18, 28, and 50mm lenses will let you shoot straight narrative. To "wow" the audience, you will need to rely on lighting, costume, acting, etc. But what if you want a bigger than life shot? Put a super wide lens at the feet of your actor. Or maybe you want the look of a sheriff walking down a dusty street through the heat waves. For that you need a telephoto.

In that case, I'd get something like the EF 10-22, EF 17-55 IS, and the EF 70-200 IS. With this set, you cover a wider creative range, but you give up the super fine focus control.

On the other hand, if you are creative enough, you can shoot a whole film with a 28mm lens, give it a consistent feel, and make a great movie.

For the typical Indian-style film, the 18, 28, and 50mm could very well do the trick. The 18mm covers establishing shots, wide action, and dance scenes, though you might want something wider if you aren't able to back up the camera. The 28mm covers the normal view, including interaction of a small number of people. The 50mm is your moderate closeup lens. An 85mm would be useful if you want really tight closeups.

The big question is whether you want to cover the critical range with the best lenses for accurate video focus, or if you want to cover a wider range of focal lengths and use still camera zooms. There is no one correct answer. It all depends on your vision and goals.

[Kenneth Tong]

It seems that the addition of a 50mm (f1.4 or f1.8) is a nice addition for low light situations.

The 70-200 f4 IS is very nice but not within my budget!

Besides lenses, I may need to get a very very good tripod & microphone for my video. A bit off the topic.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Sareesh,

It sounds to me like you are doing human-scale narrative. IMHO, the key range on a full frame camera is roughly 28-85. That's 17.5 - 53 on an ASP-C camera. You could cover this with an EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

On the other hand, you mention dollies and cranes, in which case, you don't need IS. And if you absolutely want to nail focus, you will want the best focus control you can get. In that case, I'd get the Zeiss 18mm, 28mm, and 50mm lenses. The ZE and ZF series lenses have high quality and excellent focus rings. In fact, soon Zeiss will introduce a new set of Compact Prime II lenses. These will have even longer throws of 300 degrees for accurate focus control. The Zeiss ZE and ZF lenses are in the $1,000 range. The Compact Prime II lenses will be more like $3,500 each.

So, if you want the best quality and focus control in the critical range, Zeiss primes are a good choice.

But it really depends on style. The 18, 28, and 50mm lenses will let you shoot straight narrative. To "wow" the audience, you will need to rely on lighting, costume, acting, etc. But what if you want a bigger than life shot? Put a super wide lens at the feet of your actor. Or maybe you want the look of a sheriff walking down a dusty street through the heat waves. For that you need a telephoto.

In that case, I'd get something like the EF 10-22, EF 17-55 IS, and the EF 70-200 IS. With this set, you cover a wider creative range, but you give up the super fine focus control.

On the other hand, if you are creative enough, you can shoot a whole film with a 28mm lens, give it a consistent feel, and make a great movie.

For the typical Indian-style film, the 18, 28, and 50mm could very well do the trick. The 18mm covers establishing shots, wide action, and dance scenes, though you might want something wider if you aren't able to back up the camera. The 28mm covers the normal view, including interaction of a small number of people. The 50mm is your moderate closeup lens. An 85mm would be useful if you want really tight closeups.

The big question is whether you want to cover the critical range with the best lenses for accurate video focus, or if you want to cover a wider range of focal lengths and use still camera zooms. There is no one correct answer. It all depends on your vision and goals.

First of all, let me thank you for the fantastic answer.

I personally like the wider lens (21-28mm - 35mm) range and feel. Somehow it seems more visceral. Your suggestions are spot on. I might go for the three zoom lenses in my kit and when required, hire/buy the prime lens/additional lens as required.

However, I'm seriously reconsidering DSLRs as a whole because of Barry Greens inputs regarding the low lines of resolution and poor blow-up to cinema screens.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

kenneth
Sound does not enter the equation because there's no way I'll be using camera mics ports for a feature film! There'll be a sound guy for that.

As far as tripods are concerned, yes of course. But I'll have to design a rig so pans/tilts can be smooth.

[Nicholas de Kock]

The three lenses I use all the time is...

Canon 16-35mm F2.8L
Canon 24-70mm F2.8L
Canon 70-200mm F2.8L

For macro shots the...
Canon 100mm Macro F2.8

Buy quality glass.