If you had to carry any two lens...

which would they be? I like to shoot day to day stuff I'm thinking the Nikkor 18-200vr and 50mm f/1.4D

Hmm... after looking further why does the 50mm F/1.8D cost less than half as much as the f/1.4D?

Extra aperture costs a lot.
The f/number is the ratio of the focal length to the aperture area.
Smaller f/number means more glass, which is expensive.

I walk around with EF 24-70 L and EF 100-400 L IS for my Canon.
That covers almost everything at a race meeting.
For day to day I bought the Canon f/1.8 50mm, a tenth the cost of the f/1.4

I'd have my 12-24 F4 & 70-200 F2.8 as my walk around lenses

Is that extra 0.4 that big of a difference?

Right now I have the kit lens from my d40x (18-55) that I will probably sell. I'd like to have something faster than the 18-200 though also. 50mm might not be enough of a wide angle either... I don't want to spend more than $1000 on both lenses. What would you guys recommend? Sorry this is turning more into a lens help thread.

ah thats tough. I would do 3.. 24-70 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. But I guess if I could only cary two I would probably ditch the 70-200. It really all depends on my situation though.

Of the lenses that I have now, it would be the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, and the Sigma 170-500mm.

For my 5D I use the 24-105 L IS as a walkaround lens and I carry my 100-400 L IS for the farther away stuff. HTH.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StreetDoc

Is that extra 0.4 that big of a difference?

---

It's actually 2/3 stop - and could be very helpful if you're shooting in low light. On my next trip, I'm only bringing my Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 28-80. I just don't have the space for an 80-200...

For my general walk around lens I use the kit lens 18-70mm or the 28-200mm. But it depends on what I have to shoot or plan to shoot. If I only could take 2 lenses it would be the 18-70 and the 70-300 micro, but the 50 f1.4 is so light I would just throw it in the camera bag.