For the sake of lenses...

[henry_l]

<p>If you were to only have two lenses, one prime, and one zoom. Which would it be? Doesn't matter what your subject matter is, or what camera body (crop or FF). Just pick one of each for your own personal style of photography.<br>

I currently have the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 17-40L, 24-105L. My most prized photos were taken with the primes, but I love the flexibility of the zooms for everything else. I shooting with the 60D, and have unlimited access to a 5D2.<br>

Lately, I've been browsing sample images of the 35L, and love the "look" on a full-frame. So I was thinking, of selling the 50, 85, and 17-40. And having only the 35L and 24-105 to cover my basis.<br>

Whadiyathink?</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>24-105L & 400MM 5.6.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>24-105 L & 35/1.4</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>EF 24-105mm IS L f/4 and 50mm f/1.2 L</p>

<p>EF-S 15-85mm IS if an APS-C (DX) camera.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>I would settle on the Spiratone 8-420mm f/8.3 with an EOS Spiratone adapter. A 1 lens solution.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>16-35 f2.8, 50 f1.4.</p>

<p>If you said just one lens, the 35 f1.4.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>24-105/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p>So I was thinking, of selling the 50, 85, and 17-40. And having only the 35L and 24-105 to cover my basis.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you think that is what you need, who are we to disagree. :=)</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>(Just realized you asked for a prime and a zoom... that's a lot harder. With vast reluctance I'd go with 24/1.4 and 70-200/2.8 IS.)</p>

[henry_l]

<p>@ Mike S,<br>

To agree or disagree, I'm still curious to know what lens combination others would choose. And hopefully, with the responses, I'd see other combos I didn't think about yet. <br>

I'd miss my 50/1.4, but I wouldn't mine having something wider like the 35L. The 24-105 has the most usage overall, and 24 is plenty wide for me. Thus the 17-40 is "almost" superfluous compared to the 24-105, but there are times when I need it. The 85 is the least used comparatively, but I love what it can produce on both format sensors.<br>

So my end goal is to consolidate the lenses I use less often into a lens that I would use and enjoy more. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy using the former lenses.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>16-35 2.8L and the 85 1.8.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Cropped sensor: 70-200L F2.8 IS II, 500 F4L. (since this is all hypothetical).<br>

Full Frame: 24-70L F2.8 and 135L F2 -Reasons for having a full frame would be entirely different that that of a cropped sensor body.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Crop, probably 15-85 and 100/2.8L macro.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Canon 17mm TS-E on my 1Ds, and Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S on my D2X. Going beyond what I currently have, I guess the Nikon 200-400 instead of the 80-200.</p>

<p>For your purposes I would think hard before switching to only the 35/1.4. Set your 17-40 to 35mm and tape it there for two months and put the 50 and the 85 in the back of a drawer somewhere. Then let us know what you think. </p>

<p>If you press ahead with the 35/1.4 then I would at least try to keep the 85/1.8 for good quality portraits rather than relying on the 24-105.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I shoot full frame so probably my 17 F4 TS and 24-70 F2.8. the other alternative is my 16-35 F2.8 II and either the 85 F1.2 or 85 F1.8 (i only have the F1.8 but if I only had one prime it would be the F1.2)</p>

[martin-s]

<p>"Thus the 17-40 is "almost" superfluous compared to the 24-105, but there are times when I need it."</p>

<p>I take it you're not much of a wide angle person and you seem to be after a good general purpose zoom and a fast prime.</p>

<p>In that case (on full-frame) your suggestion of the 35L f1.4 and 24-105 makes a lot of sense to me. Personally I would prefer an 85mm over the 35mm, but since the f1.8 is such a compact and inexpensive lens, you could fit that in as well.</p>

<p>I'd give the more exotic, faster lenses suggested by others a miss, especially if weight and price are a concern; from your enquiry it seems unlikely you have a need for e.g. a 17mm TS-E.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>prime: 600mm f/4L IS II</p>

<p>zoom: 17-40mm f/4L</p>

[Brad_]

I only use a 35mm f/1.4. I don't have need for a zoom for what I shoot.

[stp]

<p>24mm T/S and 70-200mm f/2.8 II.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Henry-re-read your post, I missed the second part. I went soley on the premise of what my choices would be.</p>

<p>35L AND a 24-105?- I understand wanting the faster prime, and it is an excellent lens-but it falls smack in the middle of your zoom's range. To limit overlap and extend possibilities with just two lenses-I'd suggest the 24-70 2.8 and a longer prime, something from this group:<br>

85 F1.8<br>

100 F2<br>

or the 135F2<br>

Latter is outside your mentioned range, but is an excellent lens offering a little reach on the FF.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Scott Ferris almost got the correct answer, I am with Ken P.:</p>

<p>16 - 35F/2.8L MkII and the 85/1.8,<br>

I agree with Scott, about the one lens answer, though.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I'll learn William, I'll learn :-)</p>

<p>Very best wishes.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>you were only 35mm out.<br>

best back to you.</p>

[matthijs]

17-40/4 plus 100L macro.

 

On FF.

[markonestudios]

<p>Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Canon 135L</p>