Had to rethink which two lenses to rent, need help deciding

[jared_angle]

<p>I will be leaving for Chicago tomorrow morning and visiting Calumet Photo to rent two lenses for the duration of my stay in Chicago. I was planning on renting a superwide lens (14mm) and a mid-telephoto (85mm, 105mm, 135mm) to broaden my photographic options.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain rental insurance to cover both lenses (or even one) so instead I must support the rentals with a credit card in case the lenses are damaged or stolen. The issue is that I am not comfortable having a hold on my card for two $1500 lenses, but I am comfortable with just one lens at this cost. What I have been considering though, is instead of getting the very best lens for one, and missing out on the other focal length, that I should instead rent two lenses that are less expensive.</p>

<p>For example, instead of the 14mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.4 (almost $3000 together) I could rent the 18mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 (under $1500) or the 20mm 2.8 and an inexpensive but quality telephoto with a fast aperture. I am also willing to use a fixed or variable aperture wide zoom. This must be a full frame lens, as it will be used on my F100. Which superwide and short-to-mid telephoto would you suggest that I use for the trip, that can be covered with $1500 or less in the event of damage or loss?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think that a 14mm has more limited use on a trip than an 18mm honestly. I'd probably rent an 18-35 if they have it instead, though. more useful.</p>

<p>Me? I'd do an 18mm or 18-35 and the 85 f1.8. But I prefer zooms and would be even happier with some kind of 28-80 or something.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>You don't mention what lenses you own nor for how long a period you intend to rent; also no information on what your photographic interests are. Rather than rent, I'd buy a 18-35 and 85/1.8 outright - used if possible; this might not be an option on such short notice though.</p>

[jared_angle]

<p>I own the 50mm f/1.8, it's the only lens I use for 35mm except for every now and then when I use the 18-55mm DX at 24mm for buildings. My main photography interests are fashion portraits and street, but I would like to use the proper full frame wide angle for some of the "wow" shots of the city on slides, as I have a whole day to play before I am meeting a model downtown for a photoshoot. I'll just be renting the lenses overnight.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I don't know if you are experienced with ultra wides, they can be a bit difficult to use at the start. I would look at a 24, 50 and short tele if it has to be fast primes. Other wise as Peter Hamm suggests a mid range zoom, 24 or 28-70mm f2.8 or wide zoom may be a better choice. The old Nikkor 28-105mm is a nice lens if you can find one to purchase - $100-150.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Thanks Jared. Rather than the 14/2.8, I'd rent the 14-24/2.8 - might even come in handy for your model shoot; it's more flexible than the prime and shouldn't cost more. With the 85/1.8 you'd be giving up the "bokeh king" 85/1.4 - might be a compromise you could live with though.</p>

[james_smith11]

<p>It appears that you are using a DX system. If that is the case, I would suggest a 12-24 or 10-24 zoom. Either would be fun shooting the "bean" at Millennium Park, the buildings on Michigan Ave, the Water Tower, etc. If you are by chance using a full frame (FX) system, I would second the recommendation to try the 14-24 zoom. Enjoy Chicago! You can have a lot of fun with a superwide downtown.<br>

Jim</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p><em>"It appears that you are using a DX system."</em></p>

<p>He'll be using an F100 and shooting slides on this trip. He also mentioned street.<br>

For that, my own personal preference would be a 21-35-50 combo (as a street shooter), but with an AF camera, the 85/1.4 AFD should be one of your lenses. For WA, first decide which FL you want to shoot, then weigh available options.</p>

<p> </p>