Which 3 lenses?

OK . . . here's a simple question that is no doubt infinitely complicated in it's details. That's why I'm asking you all because I know that all those details reside with the members of this forum.

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which would they be??

I'm about to step up from the Nikon CP line of cameras and purchase a D100, and I'll be starting from scratch with the entire kit. Regrding the camera back, CF cards, most accesories . . . no problem.

But for lenses . . . I'm thinking of starting with three. I know that "lens collection" can be a life-long sport, but I'm thinking three to start and to cover a fairly wide range.

My current set-up allows me to shoot from 24mm-310mm (equivalent). I am used to that set-up and I routinely use the entire range of focal lengths; at times I find myself wishing for more on the long end.

Mostly I shoot street shots and nature / landscapes. I also do quite a bit of macro, but I'm thinking that I could continue using my CP4500 for macro work (for the time being).

I'm thinking that on the wide-end I'll go with the 17-35. Then it gets complicated . . . wondering if I should overlap the zoom ranges (seems like a good idea) and then how "long" I can reasonably go within a three lens budget. Converters for the long end?

Sigma (or other) vs. Nikon? I like to save money just like everyone else. But one thing I really don't like is to "save" money and then wish I'd spent a bit more for quality. Any comments on brands in general? Or specific to a given lens or zoom range?

I know I've asked what may be an impossible question but any and all advice would be appreciated.

Cheers, --Pat

Personally, I'd go with the 12-24 DX, 24-120 VR (or 24-85 AFS) and the 70-200 VR. Then get a TC-14EII if you need to go longer.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

1PatrickM said:

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which
would they be??

Click to expand...

I was in the same exact boat about 5 months ago. going from Coolpix 990 to DSLR.

I could have spent a fortune on top of the line gear (like some others on this forum), but opted for tools that are good enough for a serious amateur (and sometimes professional).

Here's what I did (no regrets):

Tamron 17-35 ($200. great images, great value)
Nikkor 28-105mm ($325. use it every day, also has great macro capability)
Nikkor 80-300mm ($300. great range. great value)

Nikkor 50mm 1.8 ($100. great for low light and portraits)

Here is a collection of images I've taken with all of those lenses (not always indicated)

http://www.pbase.com/msommers/

good luck!

m

1PatrickM said:

OK . . . here's a simple question that is no doubt infinitely
complicated in it's details. That's why I'm asking you all because
I know that all those details reside with the members of this forum.

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which
would they be??

I'm about to step up from the Nikon CP line of cameras and purchase
a D100, and I'll be starting from scratch with the entire kit.
Regrding the camera back, CF cards, most accesories . . . no
problem.

But for lenses . . . I'm thinking of starting with three. I know
that "lens collection" can be a life-long sport, but I'm thinking
three to start and to cover a fairly wide range.

My current set-up allows me to shoot from 24mm-310mm (equivalent).
I am used to that set-up and I routinely use the entire range of
focal lengths; at times I find myself wishing for more on the long
end.

Mostly I shoot street shots and nature / landscapes. I also do
quite a bit of macro, but I'm thinking that I could continue using
my CP4500 for macro work (for the time being).

I'm thinking that on the wide-end I'll go with the 17-35. Then it
gets complicated . . . wondering if I should overlap the zoom
ranges (seems like a good idea) and then how "long" I can
reasonably go within a three lens budget. Converters for the long
end?

Sigma (or other) vs. Nikon? I like to save money just like
everyone else. But one thing I really don't like is to "save"
money and then wish I'd spent a bit more for quality. Any comments
on brands in general? Or specific to a given lens or zoom range?

I know I've asked what may be an impossible question but any and
all advice would be appreciated.

Cheers, --Pat

Click to expand...

1PatrickM said:

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which
would they be??

Click to expand...

It's expensive, but for me it would be

a) the 17-35mm Nikkor on the wide side, absolutely. On a d100 that takes care of semi-wide to normal, and it's just a killer, killer lens.

b) the 60mm micro Nikkor. sharp, sharp, sharp for close to medium range. not a good lens for street shooting (focus speed), but good for most everything else you do and answers your macro needs exceptionally well.

c) 80-200 / 70-200 2.8 AF zoom, also Nikkor.
That covers the long lens landscape stuff and any distance people/street stuff.

Not a fan of 3rd party lenses, never been happy with the results of them but I'm exceedingly picky, your mileage may vary.

If I had to cut the dollars down, I'd substitute the 85 F/1.8 for the 80-200 and lose a LOT of range, but for what I do there is less need for strong telephoto versus medium telephoto.

-m

If the 17-35 is too much for your budget go for the Sigma 15-30 or Nikkor 12-24 for wide stuff. If you are not super critical Nikkor's 28-200 is a good all around lens, but if you need f2.8 then an 80-200 2.8 or a newer 70-200 VR.

I like the VR as I have a difficult time hand-holding steady.

Mike Sommers said:

I was in the same exact boat about 5 months ago. going from Coolpix
990 to DSLR.

I could have spent a fortune on top of the line gear (like some
others on this forum), but opted for tools that are good enough for
a serious amateur (and sometimes professional).

Here's what I did (no regrets):

Tamron 17-35 ($200. great images, great value)
Nikkor 28-105mm ($325. use it every day, also has great macro
capability)
Nikkor 80-300mm ($300. great range. great value)

Nikkor 50mm 1.8 ($100. great for low light and portraits)

Here is a collection of images I've taken with all of those lenses
(not always indicated)

http://www.pbase.com/msommers/

good luck!

m

Click to expand...

Thanks, Mike. That was a pretty straightforward answer. Just what I was looking for.

One question . . . are those "new" or "used" prices that you are quoting above? Just seems a bit more "reasonable" than I was expecting. No problem with that, though!

Cheers, --Pat

anotherMike said:

anotherMike said:

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which
would they be??

Click to expand...

It's expensive, but for me it would be

a) the 17-35mm Nikkor on the wide side, absolutely. On a d100 that
takes care of semi-wide to normal, and it's just a killer, killer
lens.

b) the 60mm micro Nikkor. sharp, sharp, sharp for close to medium
range. not a good lens for street shooting (focus speed), but good
for most everything else you do and answers your macro needs
exceptionally well.

c) 80-200 / 70-200 2.8 AF zoom, also Nikkor.
That covers the long lens landscape stuff and any distance
people/street stuff.

Not a fan of 3rd party lenses, never been happy with the results of
them but I'm exceedingly picky, your mileage may vary.

If I had to cut the dollars down, I'd substitute the 85 F/1.8 for
the 80-200 and lose a LOT of range, but for what I do there is less
need for strong telephoto versus medium telephoto.

-m

Click to expand...

Mike: Great. Thanks for that. I didn't really consider a prime except as for that "4th" lens in the future, and it would be for macro. Interesting, though, and I'll give that some thought.

I, like you, tend to be picky as well; that's why I asked about brands. Particularly with optics, be it camera lenses, binoculars, rifle scopes, or spotting scopes. The difference is real and it is almost always a question of you get what you pay for. I wasn't sure how well or completely that translated to SLR lenses; I've read some good reviews and heard some good things about Sigma's lenses - at a very significant savings. I'm picky but stingy. Heck of a combination, but in the end I'll always pay more if it is justified by quality.

Good stuff. Thanks again, --Pat

if you got all the money in the world...get the 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200...

1PatrickM said:

OK . . . here's a simple question that is no doubt infinitely
complicated in it's details. That's why I'm asking you all because
I know that all those details reside with the members of this forum.

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which
would they be??

I'm about to step up from the Nikon CP line of cameras and purchase
a D100, and I'll be starting from scratch with the entire kit.
Regrding the camera back, CF cards, most accesories . . . no
problem.

But for lenses . . . I'm thinking of starting with three. I know
that "lens collection" can be a life-long sport, but I'm thinking
three to start and to cover a fairly wide range.

My current set-up allows me to shoot from 24mm-310mm (equivalent).
I am used to that set-up and I routinely use the entire range of
focal lengths; at times I find myself wishing for more on the long
end.

Mostly I shoot street shots and nature / landscapes. I also do
quite a bit of macro, but I'm thinking that I could continue using
my CP4500 for macro work (for the time being).

I'm thinking that on the wide-end I'll go with the 17-35. Then it
gets complicated . . . wondering if I should overlap the zoom
ranges (seems like a good idea) and then how "long" I can
reasonably go within a three lens budget. Converters for the long
end?

Sigma (or other) vs. Nikon? I like to save money just like
everyone else. But one thing I really don't like is to "save"
money and then wish I'd spent a bit more for quality. Any comments
on brands in general? Or specific to a given lens or zoom range?

I know I've asked what may be an impossible question but any and
all advice would be appreciated.

Cheers, --Pat

Click to expand...

--
http://www.phatimages.com



http://www.digital-life-21.com/forums/index.php?s=

. . . your recommendation pretty much matches what I've been thinking (just needing a bit of confirmation/affirmation). Only exception really was that I'd been thinking of the 17-35, but the extra on the wide end would be a plus.

Obviously a newbie question, but no problems with the TC on the 70-200VR?

--Pat
(oh, i had a look your photos from Bosque de Apache . . . nice stuff!)

Anthony Medici said:

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

1PatrickM said:

??If you were just starting out, and buying only 3 lenses, which
would they be??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

phat dinh said:

if you got all the money in the world...

Click to expand...

If only . . .

Hi Pat,

I got those prices this morning on the B & H photo web site for brand new, USA versions of those lenses. You can definitely find them cheaper elsewhere, but B & H is what I consider to be a "sure bet" when it comes to getting what you pay for with good service. I actually bought my 80-300mm Nikon used (on eBay) for $235.

Yes, the prices for all those lenses are very reasonable. I did quite a bit of comparison shopping online and in person before making my purchases. If you search this forum on any one of those lenses you will find that they all rate very highly on the price/quality scale.

Of course there are people who have never used any of them who will claim that their lenses that cost 3 times as much are 10 times sharper, have better color & contrast and will last you 10 times longer, but take a look at some of the photos taken with all that great gear...

...with the exception of a few rare cases, the difference in output is usually impossible to see.

Good luck! and enjoy your adventures with your DSLR... This is a great forum filled with tons of wonderful advice. I was on this forum several times a day when I first got my D100. Avoided a lot of mistakes because of the info gleaned on these pages. Just be patient and don't make your gear decisions based on the opinions of the loudest voices...

by the way, some of the greatest work to be posted here recently was done with Sigma lenses.

Mike

1PatrickM said:

Mike Sommers said:

I was in the same exact boat about 5 months ago. going from Coolpix
990 to DSLR.

I could have spent a fortune on top of the line gear (like some
others on this forum), but opted for tools that are good enough for
a serious amateur (and sometimes professional).

Here's what I did (no regrets):

Tamron 17-35 ($200. great images, great value)
Nikkor 28-105mm ($325. use it every day, also has great macro
capability)
Nikkor 80-300mm ($300. great range. great value)

Nikkor 50mm 1.8 ($100. great for low light and portraits)

Here is a collection of images I've taken with all of those lenses
(not always indicated)

http://www.pbase.com/msommers/

good luck!

m

Click to expand...

Thanks, Mike. That was a pretty straightforward answer. Just what
I was looking for.

One question . . . are those "new" or "used" prices that you are
quoting above? Just seems a bit more "reasonable" than I was
expecting. No problem with that, though!

Cheers, --Pat

Click to expand...

Good advice (again) Mike. Thanks. And your right on the forum. I'm fairly regular over on the Coolpix forum, that's how I knew to come over here for answers . . . and often more questions than I thought I had, but that's a good thing.

And I know you are right on quality. I've seen some absolutely stunning images taken with some pretty meager, minimalistic gear. That's part of why I've continued with the CP4500 as long as I have . . . trying to improve the photographer behind the lens, instead of just putting more expensive gear in front of my face.

Part of the "problem" for me (living overseas) is there is no "corner camera store". I'm planning to get the list together and order everything either through a brick-and-mortar, or off the net, and pick it up when I'm back in the states for vacation (in a month or two). I'll need to make sure I've got what I need to tide me over for 6-12 months because there is nothing available here. Well, maybe low-cap / high-$ CF cards, but that's about it.

Thanks again, --Pat

Mike Sommers said:

I got those prices this morning on the B & H photo web site for
brand new, USA versions of those lenses. You can definitely find
them cheaper elsewhere, but B & H is what I consider to be a "sure
bet" when it comes to getting what you pay for with good service. I
actually bought my 80-300mm Nikon used (on eBay) for $235.

Yes, the prices for all those lenses are very reasonable. I did
quite a bit of comparison shopping online and in person before
making my purchases. If you search this forum on any one of those
lenses you will find that they all rate very highly on the
price/quality scale.

Of course there are people who have never used any of them who will
claim that their lenses that cost 3 times as much are 10 times
sharper, have better color & contrast and will last you 10 times
longer, but take a look at some of the photos taken with all that
great gear...

...with the exception of a few rare cases, the difference in output
is usually impossible to see.

Good luck! and enjoy your adventures with your DSLR... This is a
great forum filled with tons of wonderful advice. I was on this
forum several times a day when I first got my D100. Avoided a lot
of mistakes because of the info gleaned on these pages. Just be
patient and don't make your gear decisions based on the opinions of
the loudest voices...

by the way, some of the greatest work to be posted here recently
was done with Sigma lenses.

Mike

1PatrickM said:

Mike Sommers said:

I was in the same exact boat about 5 months ago. going from Coolpix
990 to DSLR.

I could have spent a fortune on top of the line gear (like some
others on this forum), but opted for tools that are good enough for
a serious amateur (and sometimes professional).

Here's what I did (no regrets):

Tamron 17-35 ($200. great images, great value)
Nikkor 28-105mm ($325. use it every day, also has great macro
capability)
Nikkor 80-300mm ($300. great range. great value)

Nikkor 50mm 1.8 ($100. great for low light and portraits)

Here is a collection of images I've taken with all of those lenses
(not always indicated)

http://www.pbase.com/msommers/

good luck!

m

Click to expand...

Thanks, Mike. That was a pretty straightforward answer. Just what
I was looking for.

One question . . . are those "new" or "used" prices that you are
quoting above? Just seems a bit more "reasonable" than I was
expecting. No problem with that, though!

Cheers, --Pat

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Where are you?

Check out http://www.hksupplies.com

Really good stuff, good prices and shipping anywhere.

I got my 12-24 and 24-120 from them in 4 days via PayPal.

Been in the DSLR boat for a while now, and think I'm getting steady with my set of lenses now:

• 17-35 AFS
• 50 f1.4
• 70-200VR

I previously had and sold:

• Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4 D
• Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO. Great toy, loads of hunting, annoying centrifuge force when it happens.
• Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4. too much distortion
• Sigma 70-200 EX. That I actually liked, but couldn't resist VR.

Once I bought the 50mm, I found myself never using the mid-range zoom again: the distance I need to move to frame what I want is quite small...
There is for me a much bigger advantage to having a lens that fast.

The great thing is my set of filters work both on the 17-35 and 70-200. It's good not to have to carry around three polarizers, etc. I don't use filters with the 50, for some reason. Must be personal.

My advice for you:

• 17-35 AFS
• 50 f1.8
• 70-200VR

The f1.4 comes in really handy during concerts and parties when you want to avoid the flash. I hear the f1.8 is much sharper, I must admit the f1.4 isn't always... It's a matter of whether or not you need as much light as you can get.

My advice doesn't include any macro lens, because I think your CP may well be giving you more than is easilly achievable with a D100. (personal opinion, based on seeing results from a friend's CP in a concurrent session).

This is assuming you want to spend that sort of money. I never regretted it, but it still is a massive hole in an account...

Others will have more substantiated advice, but I felt it is worth mentionning the fact that a good prime may be a better choice than a mid-range zoom...
--
http://www.hypernavigate.org

After reading through hundreds of posts on every single currently produced Nikon lens (and comparasions made to Nikon lenses, namely Sigma), I have decided to get the following gear:

Nikon D100 $1,700
EN-EL3 battery $45
SB-80DX Flash $290
Lexar 512 MB 40X CF $190
CF Reader $20
Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX $550
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Zoom-Nikkor $285
70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor $270
MB-D100 grip $250
Bogen 3001BN Tripod with 3047 3-Way Pan/Tilt Head $168
Domke Bug Bag 20 Camera Shoulder Bag $45
B+W Step up rings to 77mm $40
Hoya 77mm Circular Polarizer (HMC) Multi-Coated Glass Filter $135
Total $3,988

Most of these prices are from B&H as how others have mentioned, its the best place (or Adorama). The lens choice was made mainly on price/performance, more than absolute quality. This is fine for me, as this is a hobby, not a profession. Would love to have the 12-24, the VR 70-200, and any other $1K plus lens from Nikon, but like you, esto se pone caro pronto! Some might argue that the AFS 24-85 would be better than the 28-105, but like you, I keep wanting longer range. Opinions are split on these two lenses, some say the 24-85 is the biggest bang for the buck and love it, except for the plastic feel of it, and others say that the 28-105 has sharper images, and longer range to boot (but no AFS nor ED glass). These two lenses cost pretty much the same.

The Sigma 50-500 is highly rated also, but a bit heavy and needs a lots of light. Where I live, it rains 9 months out of the year! Apparently, there are some quality issues with the Sigma lenses, where some get lemons, others have no issue. Since not being in the States and reliability an absolute must, I opted to go for the tried and true lenses.

So, take my free advice for what its worth. If anyone has any opinions on my selection, please feel free to let me know as I want to make sure I get it right the first time.

But there are so many possible variants

for instance, you could replace that (lovely) 70-200 VR with the 80-400 VR - it's a little cheaper, and although slower, it gives you a much bigger reach and focuses closer into the bargain. I've found that it's great for close up photography at a reasonable distance.

I kind of agree about the mid range, but the new 24-120 is pretty cheap, small and light and also has VR.

You could even replace the 17-35 (also lovely) with the new 12-24 - again you lose a little aperture, but with:

12-24
24-120 VR
80-400 VR

you have much bigger reach, with pretty good quality for slightly less money.

kind regards
jono slack

Jerome Muffat said:

Been in the DSLR boat for a while now, and think I'm getting steady
with my set of lenses now:

• 17-35 AFS
• 50 f1.4
• 70-200VR

I previously had and sold:

• Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4 D
• Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO. Great toy, loads of hunting, annoying

centrifuge force when it happens.

• Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4. too much distortion
• Sigma 70-200 EX. That I actually liked, but couldn't resist VR.

Once I bought the 50mm, I found myself never using the mid-range
zoom again: the distance I need to move to frame what I want is
quite small...
There is for me a much bigger advantage to having a lens that fast.

The great thing is my set of filters work both on the 17-35 and
70-200. It's good not to have to carry around three polarizers,
etc. I don't use filters with the 50, for some reason. Must be
personal.

My advice for you:

• 17-35 AFS
• 50 f1.8
• 70-200VR

The f1.4 comes in really handy during concerts and parties when you
want to avoid the flash. I hear the f1.8 is much sharper, I must
admit the f1.4 isn't always... It's a matter of whether or not you
need as much light as you can get.

My advice doesn't include any macro lens, because I think your CP
may well be giving you more than is easilly achievable with a D100.
(personal opinion, based on seeing results from a friend's CP in a
concurrent session).

This is assuming you want to spend that sort of money. I never
regretted it, but it still is a massive hole in an account...

Others will have more substantiated advice, but I felt it is worth
mentionning the fact that a good prime may be a better choice than
a mid-range zoom...
--
http://www.hypernavigate.org

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

1PatrickM said:

ECHO

Click to expand...

a) the 17-35mm Nikkor on the wide side, absolutely. On a d100 that takes care of semi-wide to normal, and it's just a killer, killer lens. I AGREE!

b) the 60mm micro Nikkor. sharp, sharp, sharp for close to medium range. not a good lens for street shooting (focus speed), but good for most everything else you do and answers your macro needs exceptionally well. I AGREE

c) 80-200 / 70-200 2.8 AF zoom, also Nikkor. I AGREE

That covers the long lens landscape stuff and any distance people/street stuff.

I got a) & b) on ebay for $1200 & $265, looking for a 70/200mm, maybe when they drop to $1200.

--
Pernel Pixel is Pure Digital Now
D-1 - D100 - 45mm f2.8P - 60mm f2.8 - 17-35mm f.2.8 - Oly C5050z
Past Life: lost TWO Nikon SP's !@^@! - F's - Ftn's - Nikormat EL

I like to know I have f/2.8, even if I'm now tending to shoot at f/5.6-8 : always end up in these situations when the fast lens lets me take a shot I'd blur otherwise...

I must admit the thing that really made the biggest difference for me between my previous lenses and my current ones is AF-S. No more hunting, and no more camera "twisting" when going from close focus to further. Expensive feature but not praised enough according to me.

And yes Jono, you're very right: combinations are endless and as we're all different, it makes sense that it is so...

Jono Slack said:

for instance, you could replace that (lovely) 70-200 VR with the
80-400 VR - it's a little cheaper, and although slower, it gives
you a much bigger reach and focuses closer into the bargain. I've
found that it's great for close up photography at a reasonable
distance.

I kind of agree about the mid range, but the new 24-120 is pretty
cheap, small and light and also has VR.

You could even replace the 17-35 (also lovely) with the new 12-24 -
again you lose a little aperture, but with:

12-24
24-120 VR
80-400 VR

you have much bigger reach, with pretty good quality for slightly
less money.

kind regards
jono slack

Jerome Muffat said:

Been in the DSLR boat for a while now, and think I'm getting steady
with my set of lenses now:

• 17-35 AFS
• 50 f1.4
• 70-200VR

I previously had and sold:

• Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4 D
• Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO. Great toy, loads of hunting, annoying

centrifuge force when it happens.

• Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4. too much distortion
• Sigma 70-200 EX. That I actually liked, but couldn't resist VR.

Once I bought the 50mm, I found myself never using the mid-range
zoom again: the distance I need to move to frame what I want is
quite small...
There is for me a much bigger advantage to having a lens that fast.

The great thing is my set of filters work both on the 17-35 and
70-200. It's good not to have to carry around three polarizers,
etc. I don't use filters with the 50, for some reason. Must be
personal.

My advice for you:

• 17-35 AFS
• 50 f1.8
• 70-200VR

The f1.4 comes in really handy during concerts and parties when you
want to avoid the flash. I hear the f1.8 is much sharper, I must
admit the f1.4 isn't always... It's a matter of whether or not you
need as much light as you can get.

My advice doesn't include any macro lens, because I think your CP
may well be giving you more than is easilly achievable with a D100.
(personal opinion, based on seeing results from a friend's CP in a
concurrent session).

This is assuming you want to spend that sort of money. I never
regretted it, but it still is a massive hole in an account...

Others will have more substantiated advice, but I felt it is worth
mentionning the fact that a good prime may be a better choice than
a mid-range zoom...
--
http://www.hypernavigate.org

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
http://www.hypernavigate.org

ah, the love of piecing it all together. nothing quite so sweet as the bow of a ship entering new water...

i'm in the same situation. due to a budget, and what appears to be a great combo (for me) this is what i'm going with:

sigma 15-30 ($549)
nikon 50/1.8 ($100)
sigma 70-200/2.8 ($600)

i've got the 50 and 70-200 already, and they're sharp, fast, (and relatively inexpensive) lenses. 1.4 tc on the way. i'm now looking for the wide end, and the 15-30 seems like a great choice.

instead of the 50mm, one might go with a nikkor 35-70/2.8. sharp lens as well, and not too spendy. fwiw. good luck.

Hi there. After pruchasing, trading, and repurchasing much in the way of lenses (steep learning curve), I currently have the following lenses in my "aresenal", if you will:

Sigma 17-35 ( I am partial to primes; I buy the less expensive, EX (only) Sigma lenses when zoom convenience is an issue)

Nikkor 60mm 2.8 micro (good for portraits, although its superior sharpness might be an issue in need of accomodation)

Nikkor 180mm 2.8 If I had but one lens to shoot with, this would be the one.

Sigma 100-300 F4 (This is a GREAT lense...although the first one had to be returned; the focussing mechanism was off track. No problems with the new one.)

Now, then...you asked about THREE lenses...

If I had to do it all over again, knowing what I know now, and being limited to only THREE lenses, and money being an issue, I would have the following:

Sigma 17-35

Nikkor 180mm

Sigma 100-300 f4

If money were NOT AN ISSUE, and for some drug induced reason I were to limit myself to THREE LENSES, they would be:

Nikkor prime....perhaps a 24 or wider

Nikkor 180mm 2.8

Nikkor 300mm 2.8

Note the following:

1) If price were not an issue, I would not own a zoom lens. I like primes. Some say that there is not much difference in picture quality between prime and zoom lenses; I find this to be a fallacy. PRIMES STILL RULE.

2) I will NEVER willingly give up my 180mm 2.8, no matter what.

3) It's harder to use primes, because they are not nearly as convenient as zooms, unless you carry several bodies with you at a time. I, however, being a fine arts oriented photographer, would rather deal with the madness to get the clearest, sharpest picture possilbe from this particular format. If you buy primes, you will likely miss some great shots. BUT THE SHOTS YOU DON'T MISS...therein lies the rub; they will CRUSH the product of your enemies, sending them fleeing in terror before thee....(okay, maybe it's not THAT deep).

4) DON'T settle for mediocre lenses due to cash restraints; spend ALL the money on ONE GOOD PRIME...the another...then another. One great lens is a thousand times more enjoyable to use than five stinky lenses.
----
huh?