Rich Granny Going to Buy You A Lens

[sandysocks]

<p>The 200-400 zoom I guess.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>600 mm f4 VR II</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Interesting answers. A clean used 28/1.4, good one.<br>

I put the "keep it forever" thing in to foil the obvious answer of getting the most expensive and selling it to buy... whatever.</p>

 

[d_balzac]

<p>CoastalOpt UV-VIS-IR 60. Not that I need it, but its THE sharpess lens in the world!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The 13mm AIS.</p>

[vcakic]

<p>I'll be sooo lame: 85 1.4. I just want that.</p>

[glockman99]

<p>Just like Ian, I'd opt for a Nikkor (MF) AIS 105mm f/1.8...That's my "REALLY want one" lens!</p>

[richard_turner1]

<p> 24mm F3.5 D ED , it looks like good fun. </p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>70-200 VR. And if Granny doesn't buy it soon I will have to...</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>second vote for 28mm f1.4 (no need to wrap it)</p>

[keith_durnford]

<p>It would have to be the 600 vr.</p>

[alexander_ghaffari]

<p>Whatever is the Nikon equivalent to the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 L USM.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>cz 1.4/50</p>

[vincent_peri]

<p>I'd be happy with a Nikkor 16mm f/2.8 AI-S lens. About $350 ought to cover it.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I grew up with my grandparents in Poland. My first camera was given to me by my parents in 1989 tough times to get anything in Poland, they, bought it in USA it was a Canon with 50mm lens on it and flash I don't recall the model #. Back to the main subject I'd like 17-55 f2.8.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>well, if the new Nikon 35mm f1.8 turns out to be a good lens, I think I'd be happy with that; it's so hard not to be greedy! cb :-)</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>price is no object</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm assuming granny is rich.</p>

<p>Tough choice..... I'd either go with the 200/2 VR or the 300/2.8 VR.... the 400 2.8 is just too big!</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>my world now are my grandkids. i like them being involved in sports. so i'd go for the 200mm f/2 VR. God bless you, Ian. Nice touch.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>I would either want the 28mm f1.4 (sorry) or the 14-24. (drool)</p>

[bmm]

<p>I'd be pragmatic and go for the most expensive of the list of lenses that I'm looking at purchasing anyway in the next few years so would be 24-70 f/2.8. I wouldn't go for a lens that I don't see a good level of need for. Of the other ones listed by people here the 28/1.4 is tempting as well...</p>

<p>And Rene I hear you, I got my wonderful 85/1.4 from my equally wonderful fiance last year and such a connection adds that extra bit of importance...</p>

[lesterphoto]

<p>"A clean used 28/1.4, good one."<br>

Now you're talking!! <br>

My second choice would be a 400mm f2.8 VR</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>...Sigmonster 200-500/2.8...400-1000</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>I think a real grandma wouldn't get anything more expensive than lenses in the category of the 50 f/1.8, 18-55 VR, or the 55-200 VR. </p>

<p>Anyway, the 500 and the 600 are both really nice, and so is the 400 f/2.8. Both since I can't sell them, and it's not too practical for me to use them, I would rather settle for a 300 f/2.8 VR or a 14-24. </p>

<p>I've tried the 300 f/2.8 once on my D40. It's such a nice lens...</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>6mm 2.8 would be my first choice. Then 200/2, 400/2...<br>

28-70 maybe?<br>

What do you already have?</p>

 

[kens]

<p>Noct-Nikkor. Period.</p>