>>2606870>and 200mmThe jump to 200mm surprised me. I don't know much about telephotos but isn't 200mm too long for everyday stuff? Wouldn't you get a longer lens for dedicated work like wildlife and sports? 200mm is a fine focal length I wouldn't say it's for the average photographer. Then again I would say the average photographer would use a zoom not a prime.
I only use one lens at a time. When I first started shooting over a year ago I would take 2 or 3 lenses with me. Now I only take one. Maybe that's why I like moderate focal lengths; not too wide and not too long. The longest lens I use is 85mm and the widest lens I have is a 28mm.
Between the 28mm and the 85mm I have a 35mm and a 50mm. I know most of /p/ thinks 28mm is too close to a 35mm and the 35mm too close to the 50mm which is true if you have them side by side but on their own they perform very differently.
24mm is a great focal length which I would agree is great for the average photographer. It's very wide but not wide enough to look goofy and distracting. I wouldn't say the 28mm is better but I like it because it is more restrained and less distracting. 35mm is more of a normal lens. Unfortunately whenever I use it I always wish it was either wider or longer, it never feels right. 50mm is great because it has a little more depth of field so you can actually get subject isolation at moderate distances. 85mm is just nice to have and the results are simply great. I whip it out whenever I want to take a portrait or when a need a little more reach but it's not something that stays on my camera for long unlike my other lenses.
I can't pick 3 lenses because how I feel about a lens changes. I have gone from loving to hating to loving again almost all my lenses. Sometimes I forget how great and useful 50mm is.
